You tell me that you understand science, and were once very scientific, then you drop --excuse me-- a giant turd like this. I could as easily say, "If the Theory of Evolution is correct, then all living creatures are evidence of Theory of Evolution's correctness," and it would still be a meaningless statement because if we already know something is true (as in the premise), then evidence is redundant. It's precisely when we don't know something that evidence becomes useful. This is probably the hardest part about talking to you -- your weak grasp on how science and logic work. And don't take this as an internet ad hom. I'm being straight with you, really. It's not your strong suit. Own it.

Actually, I think that it is you who is demonstrating a weak grasp of logic here. It seems that what I was getting at went right over your head. What you've done here is rip my statement out of its context, and then claimed I was using it in a meaningless way that I never intended. It is a straw man argument, really, and yes you did use ad homs. A giant turd? Saying that its really hard to talk to me because of my weak grasp of science and logic? Come on. I had thought that our dialogue had transcended these kind of petty caricatures.

In context, the statement is designed to get you think outside the box you're in and weigh both sides of the issue equally. It's not an argument in itself. The statement that if God exists, everything that exists is empirical evidence for God is a logically valid statement. If God exists, everything you're looking at right now if proof that He exists. Obviously, this statement by itself doesn't help you determine whether God actually exists or not. You could just as easily say that if God doesn't exist, everything that does exist is proof that He doesn't exist. Therefore, the question is, how would you tell if you're in a Universe that God designed?

The real question is, why is either possibility more or less likely than the other? You haven't addressed this, but simply have taken a leap of faith in favor of your atheistic naturalism. You say, I don't see the Planner, and I didn't see the Planner make this Universe, therefore it is not designed until proven otherwise. The problem with this is that you can't even begin to justify this assumption until you can explain why either possibility is any more likely than the other. You can't say you don't see any empirical evidence because it might be staring you in the face everywhere you look. To analyze how either possibility is more likely than the other you have to discard your assumptions about what you have seen or haven't seen and think about this on a deeper level.

Taking it a step deeper, the fact is, you would only expect to see exactly what you do see, because you are in fact a created being. A created being should expect to find himself existing in an environment capable of creating him. The crux is though that this environment is also finely tuned. You should expect to see what you do, but you should also be surprised to find that it is finely tuned. It a bit like being taken out for execution in front of a firing squad of 100 expert marksmen 3 feet away, and finding yourself alive after all of them opened fire. You should not be surprised to find yourself alive, because obviously you would have to be alive to find yourself alive, but you should be surprised to find that 100 expert marksmen missed you from 3 feet away. In the same way, you should be surprised to find yourself to be a created being in a finely tuned Universe.

What you have on your hands is a Universe full of empirical evidence that it was or wasn't designed. There are only two possibilities; the Universe was either planned or unplanned. Again, how would you tell the difference? What would you expect to see which is different from what you do see? What would make either possibility more likely? That is the point. A finely tuned Universe should tip the scales of that evidence, if you are being honest about what you can really prove.

Supernatural creation is easier to understand, but just about any other explanation is as or more plausible. When you consider some of the extreme coincidences that are required for us to exist, it stretches the mind. But we've had billions of years to evolve, and if we're talking about the whole universe, it could be that 10^one trillion universes with different physical properties have formed and collapsed, and when a balanced one finally came out of the mix, it stuck around, and here we are.

It could be, except there is no evidence there is. Why is it you that can imagine an infinite number of hypothetical Universes with no evidence, but you object to supernatural creation as somehow being less plausible than that? There is no evidence that it is less plausible, you simply assume it is. Sure, if you use your magic genie of time and chance you could imagine just about anything could happen. Scientists agree:

Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.

George Wald, Nobel Laureate, Harvard
Physics and Chemistry of Life p.12

The odds of any of this happening by itself far exceeds the number of atoms in the Universe, and there is no actual proof that it actually could happen by itself, but you still believe it to be more plausible. Why is that? In the end, why is it plausible that anything would exist at all? Why isn't everything equally unlikely in the end? Notice what George Wald said? He said time itself performs the *miracles*. He said that because the existence of life is nothing short of a miracle, but even knowing that, you would still say God is implausible. I think these arguments are what is implausible.

Look at how these scientists come to the same conclusions as you have:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/blog/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

They acknowledge there are only two possibilities, one being God, but since they hate that possibility more than they hate embracing the anthropic principle, they go with that instead, having absolutely no evidence to base that conclusion on. They simply don't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that a finely tuned Universe is *much* stronger evidence for an omnipotent God than it is for multiple Universes.

I would take a declarative statement about him, and see what implications it had, what predictions it made, then see if they were testable, either theoretically or practically. Like theoretically if God is omniscient, it means he knows everything, and if I can find an example of something he absolutely cannot know, then I've proven he's not omniscient.

What God says is that as the Heavens are higher than the Earth, so are His ways above our ways, and His thoughts above our thoughts. He also calls the wisdom of this world, foolishness. So God has directly said that it is only by His revelation and not our understanding that we can come to know Him. A limited temporal creature, trying to disprove Gods existence with his own corrupt reasoning is kind of laughable, isn't it?

In any case, it's easy to think of things God doesn't know or can't do. God doesn't know what it feels like to not exist. God can't remember a time that He didn't exist. God can't make a square circle, or an acceptable sin. This doesn't prove anything. A better definition would be, omniscience is knowing everything that can be known, and omnipotence is being able to do everything that can be done.

Or practically, if God answers prayers, then I can test that statistically. Now, you say that God refuses to be tested, but that also means that if people are sincerely praying, but someone else is measuring the effects of those prayers, that God will choose not to answer those prayers, "Sorry! I'm being tested for, so I can't help you out today." This puts the power of denying God's prayers in the hands of scientists -- ridiculous. So there's two tests for God.

Or perhaps He had sovereignly arranged for only insincere prayers or prayers outside of His will to be prayed for at that time which would give the results of the test the appearance of randomness.

This is self-fulfilling prophecy. The only reason the Jewish people came back to form a country again is because their holy book said they were entitled to do so, divine providence. Like Macbeth likely never would have become king of Scotland if he hadn't been told so by the Weird Sisters.

The Jews are historically from Israel, and there is archaeological evidence to prove this. The reason they came back to Israel is because it is historically their homeland. Given the opportunity, they would have come back to Israel with or without the bible saying they were entitled to. The point is that they were predicted to come back, not only around the date that they did, but their migration pattern was in the exact order, their currency was predicted, their economic and agricultural condition was predicted, and many other things.

I'm no biblical scholar, but I found three places where the destruction of Jerusalem is predicted. The first is in Micah 3:11-12, where it simply states that it will happen at some point. It doesn't say when, nor describe any of the circumstances. The second one I found is Daniel 9:24-26, where there's some detail that sounds kinda like Jesus, except that it was supposed to happen within 70 weeks (16 months) of when God spoke to Daniel, roughly 530 years BC. Or if you understand that the signal to begin the 70 weeks hadn't been issued yet, then Jerusalem was to have been build a mere 16 months before it was destroyed by Titus, which clearly isn't the case either. It also predicts the end will be by flood, but it was by fire, and then manual labour of soldiers, if Josephus' account is to be believed (he wasn't impartial).

The 70 weeks are not concurrent, first of all. Second, Jesus is the one who predicted the fall of Jerusalem:

Luk 19:41 And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it,
Luk 19:42 saying, "Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side
Luk 19:44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

I would have to accept Jesus as messiah before I could accept this argument. And if I had already accepted him as messiah, then the argument would be meaningless, just like the one about the universe as evidence for God's existence.

I'll rephrase this by saying, that Jesus fulfilled dozens of prophecies about the coming of the Messiah. Clearly, the impact of that Jesus has had on the world matches His claims about who He is. Consider this quotation by Napoleon:

"What a conqueror!--a conqueror who controls humanity at will, and wins to himself not only one nation, but the whole human race. What a marvel! He attaches to himself the human soul with all its energies. And how? By a miracle which surpasses all others. He claims the love of men--that is to say, the most difficult thing in the world to obtain; that which the wisest of men cannot force from his truest friend, that which no father can compel from his children, no wife from her husband, no brother from his brother--the heart. He claims it ; he requires it absolutely and undividedly, and he obtains it instantly.

Alexander, Caesar, Hannibal, Louis XIV strove in vain to secure this. They conquered the world, yet they had not a single friend, or at all events, they have none any more. Christ speaks, however, and from that moment all generations belong to him; and they are joined to him much more closely than by any ties of blood and by a much more intimate, sacred and powerful communion. He kindles the flame of love which causes one's self-love to die, and triumphs over every other love. Why should we not recognize in this miracle of love the eternal Word which created the world? The other founders of religions had not the least conception of this mystic love which forms the essence of Christianity.

I have filled multitudes with such passionate devotion that they went to death for me. But God forbid that I should compare the enthusiasm of my soldiers with Christian love. They are as unlike as their causes. In my case, my presence was always necessary, the electric effect of my glance, my voice, my words, to kindle fire in their hearts. And I certainly posses personally the secret of that magic power of taking by storm the sentiments of men; but I was not able to communicate that power to anyone. None of my generals ever learned it from me or found it out. Moreover, I myself do not possess the secret of perpetuating my name and a love for me in their hearts for ever, and to work miracles in them without material means.

Now that I languish here at St Helena, chained upon this rock, who fights, who conquers empires for me? Who still even thinks of me? Who interests himself for me in Europe? Who has remained true to me? That is the fate of all great men. It was the fate of Alexander and Caesar, as it is my own. We are forgotten, and the names of the mightiest conquerors and most illustrious emperors are soon only the subject of a schoolboy's taks. Our exploits come under the rod of a pedantic schoolmaster, who praises or condemns us as he likes.

What an abyss exists between my profound misery and the eternal reign of Christ, who is preached, loved, and worshipped, and live on throughout the entire world. Is this to die? Is it not rather to live eternally? The death of Christ! It is the death of a God."

Nope. Eternal means within all time. It implies that such an entity wouldn't necessarily exist outside of time. Maybe you meant a different word, but "eternal" doesn't describe whoever created time, if words have meaning.

Words do have meaning. Check any dictionary; the definition I used is there:

e·ter·nal/i't?rnl/
Adjective:

Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning.
(of truths, values, or questions) Valid for all time; essentially unchanging.

What is this (especially the bits in bold) based on? It this biblical? Your intuition?

Isaiah 29:13

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men

1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart

You can give God all of the lip service you want, but He is only interested in what is in your heart.

Yes, the Lord will test your sincerity:

1 Peter 1:6-7

In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.

These have come so that your faith--of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire--may be proved genuine and may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed.

Also, if God knows everything, then what could he possibly be "testing" for? You only need to test things if you don't already know. And if he does know, the he's just messing with my head, in which case, it's not a test.

The metaphor that is used for testing is that of impurities being refined out of gold or silver. Tests are to prove your sincerity, not necessarily what God knows.

>> ^messenger

Not only was your prior argument fallacious, but I refuted it. Now you're ignoring that and cherry picking your replies here. Seems pretty intellectually dishonest to me?

Alright, Ill answer your "refutations" then:

"Why shouldn't you suspect that decay rates could change?"

If you read my post, I explained why : Because there is no evidence that suggest it is changing, and no known physical mechanisms that can produce such change. The moon could suddenly start orbiting the other direction relative to earth tomorrow, but there is no signs, no evidence, that suggests or implies that it will, and also physics dont allow it unless it is pushed or pulled by some very large force etc.
Bottom line, change in the decay rate is an assumption of something for which there is no evidence. Thats why scientists dont waste their time suspecting this.

As for the line "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense". Well thats a poetic thing and all, but its not really true when you think about it for a little bit: for the most part, this is how we exclude things from our reality, and separate what is real or not. It is perfectly consistent to say "I really dont think this thing exist" while remaining, in principle, open minded. There might be green hairy monsters hiding under my bed, I can never know for absolute certain, but I dont THINK so, the absense of evidence convinces me there are none.

The same is true in say, particle physics, there may be thousands of different "higgs-bosons" of different kinds doing all sorts of crazy shit in physics, but again, in the absense of evidence... you cant just build your ideas around fantasies.

Do you know the geologic column doesn't actually exist in reality?
Are you alking about illustrations of the geologic column? Then yeah, I'm aware that it doesnt look like that in real-life, but the term is definately real, and yes, erosion and things like that can expose old layers to fresh air, this is of course well know in biology and geology. When I say fossils are layed down in order, I dont mean that they are all physically on top of eachother, but that the dating of the layers match with the kind of animals found in that era. IE: there are no "fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian" as one biologist replied when asked what would truly disprove evolution.


Caylor: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

MB: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise."

Hahaha, if that was said by an actual molecular biologist capable of finding his own ass, I'll eat my hat. This is so obviously Creo-speak from here on to hell. The first thing an actual biologist would do would be to question the use of the word "information" (I'm assuming he's asking about the information contained in DNA) in this context. Because we refer to DNA as a language and "it contains all the information needed to assemble a human" and so on, Creationists think of DNA as some sort of literary masterpiece, it seems. The truth is of course that its 4 acids spelling 95% repetetive gibberish intersped with some interesting bits that code for proteins and do actual useful stuff.

They also seems to think that (perhaps because they believe it themselves) humans existed from the get-go, and that DNA somehow evolved inside us or some shit like that. (Like one creationist who asked Richard Dawkins how we humans peed before our penises and vaginas evolved..) Anyway, like our penises, our DNA is of course much older than humans themselves, We are simply the latest iterations of a nearly endless line of attemps by nucleic acids to clone themselves by way of making an animal that does the reproduction.

I highly suspect that interview was faked by creationists , but even if it wasnt, it'd just mean that there's a molecular biologist out there who doesnt know fuck all about molecular biology and hold some strange beliefs, and he's wrong. Simple as that.


You then have the obligatory list of quotations, and what can I say?.. I can see how you think these are somehow indicating a plot or something against creationist, but honestly this is just plain quotemining.

When the guy told me $2.50 is -way- to expensive for a shot of jack, I never expected anything like this in the six years of my bartending. Punched in the neck -- so odd.

I totally agree with this guy on "your brain panics." I bartend, last night I was jacked by a customer. I escorted out (he was drunk, I refused to serve him, his buddy was cool). I didn't touch him and I walked him outside as I turned around to walk back into work the guy punched me (in the neck). Totally awkward. I shoved him away and he went down. But, someone pulls a knife you're f'ed. You think about it know how you would handle it, and you think I could do this or that, but you don't. You don't have time to think about things. You have to react. I really understand what he says, I will take last night's experience and learn from it, but things can get scary really fast. So up vote on what he says.

This is really pretty simple. If the girl is infact under legal age of consent then the boyfriend did infact do something illegal and should be labeled a sex offender as per the laws of their state. However no matter how justified the dad looks in this he also did something illegal and should face criminal charges as well. While I do understand the dad's frustration about the issue he was stupid to think that things can be solved by doing this. The boyfriend has all the right in the world to press charges against the father (and infact he should), but the father should also press charges for what the boy did. Both parties were wrong in this case and I'm sure that the authories will have the last laugh in all this when the state brings charges against the dad, and the boyfriend. Once for assult, and the other for the under age sex. Basically just another video of two people that were to stupid to understand what they got themselves into. Now on a lighter note.....One grown man spanking another grown man all I can say is..............Bbbbbbbbahahahahahahahahaahhhahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've had an idea. You just need to sift 2000 vids to get Galaxy, then your custom icon can be the probie's red P.

Whaddayathink?
>> ^probie:

>> ^dag:
This is kind of against the idea of a meritrocratic site like us.>> ^probie:
Would it be possible for probationary members to promote videos? Admittedly, I don't think of things from the admin side of the Sift, so I'm mot sure what harm it could potentially cause, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.


Yeah, I kind of figured the idea was to entice people into being part of the community. I suppose one day I'll hang up my big red P....not yet though. Thanks for the quick reply.

>> ^dag:

This is kind of against the idea of a meritrocratic site like us.>> ^probie:
Would it be possible for probationary members to promote videos? Admittedly, I don't think of things from the admin side of the Sift, so I'm mot sure what harm it could potentially cause, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.



Yeah, I kind of figured the idea was to entice people into being part of the community. I suppose one day I'll hang up my big red P....not yet though. Thanks for the quick reply.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This is kind of against the idea of a meritrocratic site like us.>> ^probie:

Would it be possible for probationary members to promote videos? Admittedly, I don't think of things from the admin side of the Sift, so I'm mot sure what harm it could potentially cause, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.

Would it be possible for probationary members to promote videos? Admittedly, I don't think of things from the admin side of the Sift, so I'm mot sure what harm it could potentially cause, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask.

This makes me think two things:

1) I'm small

2) Physics works

Here's the thing about that law it's not typically designed to punish the student, I live in Texas I know, the law is mainly targeted for parents who don't care to make sure their child goes to school or even care if their children get an education period. For some reason truancy in Texas has spiked dramatically in recent years since nothing else they've done seems to work so they've started telling parents that if you don't make sure your kid goes to school you could possibly be faced with jail time for neglect. This is actually the first time I've heard of a student themselves being jailed and I can only assume it's because she has no parents to hold accountable. Do I agree with the law no, do I think this was taken WAY too far in this case, definitely. But I still can't come up with a better answer for getting parents to realize that's it's not okay if you don't make sure your child gets a proper education. I still think these things need to be tried on a case by case basis and if the child is on their own that EVERY available solution should be explored first before resorting to drastic measures like this. That said there are some kids who simply won't go even if you walk them in the door to school every day yourself. If a kid wants to get out of school that bad they'll wait for first period to end and skip class on their own. So what do we do then? What do you do about parents who simply refuse to take their kids to school and also refuse to pull their kids out of school?(Which is entirely legal in Texas, you can pull your kids out of school anytime you wish.) Do we continue to let them waste tax payer dollars, Teacher's time and other children's resources?(For instance some electives only have so many slots per class) I don't know I don't think they should be so cavalier about sending a kid to jail but if you don't take drastic measures with some kids/parents they simply won't listen any other way.

>> ^seltar:

"She had broken a Texan law that makes it a crime to miss more than 10 days of school in a six month period, according to local news
When she recently missed classes again, he issued a summons and had her arrested in open court when she appeared." - src
So yeah, that judge is an Asshat for what he did, but the fact there is a law for missing school in Texas is even worse.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^ForgedReality:
Wow. Why. The FUCK. Did this dude settle for this dumb ass bitch? Intelligence is pretty high on the list of requirements for most self-respecting guys.

Knowing that a car traveling at 80mph takes an hour to travel 80 miles doesn't exactly make him Einstein. My girlfriend in high school was very similar to this girl. Just had a very different and creative way of thinking about things that I just found very sweet and attractive, even if she was completely wrong. Musically talented, she could play several instruments and had as much difficulty trying to teach me the piano as I had trying to teach her small engine repair. But she loved the buttsex. Oh yeah... loved the buttsex.

Um...it's not "different and creative" if it's wrong. That is just being wrong. It's only different and creative if it gets a workable answer.


I still hold to the idea that this is all staged and scripted.

>> ^ForgedReality:

Wow. Why. The FUCK. Did this dude settle for this dumb ass bitch? Intelligence is pretty high on the list of requirements for most self-respecting guys.


Knowing that a car traveling at 80mph takes an hour to travel 80 miles doesn't exactly make him Einstein. My girlfriend in high school was very similar to this girl. Just had a very different and creative way of thinking about things that I just found very sweet and attractive, even if she was completely wrong. Musically talented, she could play several instruments and had as much difficulty trying to teach me the piano as I had trying to teach her small engine repair. But she loved the buttsex. Oh yeah... loved the buttsex.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^bareboards2:
Why isn't this audiosift? Seems to meet the guidelines to me. What am I not understanding? @BoneRemake, as the keeper of the channel, is this audiosift?
I think what doogle was trying to say is this website is not audiosift. It used to be the general consensus, I think, that things which were not videos (eg: audio only or slideshows) do not belong on videosift.


Generally people say " WHAT IS THIS AUDIOSIFT ? " But I think you are spot on. This definitely belongs in Soundsift.

Well, then, he doesn't have to click on it.

The channel is clearly noted. Some of us like these audio dealies, some don't.

Ain't nobody here King of Nuthin'. We all have our own ideas, right?

Operative words in your kind explanation are "it used to be." Right?

Thanks for the explanation. I was befuzzled.


>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^bareboards2:
Why isn't this audiosift? Seems to meet the guidelines to me. What am I not understanding? @BoneRemake, as the keeper of the channel, is this audiosift?
I think what doogle was trying to say is this website is not audiosift. It used to be the general consensus, I think, that things which were not videos (eg: audio only or slideshows) do not belong on videosift.

>> ^bareboards2:

Why isn't this audiosift? Seems to meet the guidelines to me. What am I not understanding? @BoneRemake, as the keeper of the channel, is this audiosift?

I think what doogle was trying to say is this website is not audiosift. It used to be the general consensus, I think, that things which were not videos (eg: audio only or slideshows) do not belong on videosift.