I loved having triumph the insult comic dog teach me this even more than i loved the idea.

Don't worry Choggie. No one is going to take your guns. We've already decided as a nation that we'd prefer to water the tree of gun rights with the blood of first graders than to even consider the possibility that we might have a problem. Celebrate your triumph.

How can we have a substantive conversation if you're not willing to put in any effort to actually understand the subject matter, either for or against? If you're content with your blind faith in whatever scientists tell you, then you're just as dogmatic as you accuse me of being. The video I provided is very good and it chronicles the history of deep time, as well as the science behind it, in exacting detail using the methodology of geologists. You could watch 10 minutes of it, and if you decided you didn't like it, you could turn it off.

As far as the paradigm shift goes, here is a quote from the father of uniformitarianism, Charles Lyell:

I am sure you may get into Q.R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the [church] party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose [Bishop] Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the British Critic and Theological Review. They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems … . Probably there was a beginning—it is a metaphysical question, worthy of a theologian—probably there will be an end. Species, as you say, have begun and ended—but the analogy is faint and distant. Perhaps it is an analogy, but all I say is, there are, as Hutton said, ‘no signs of a beginning, no prospect of an end’ … . All I ask is, that at any given period of the past, don’t stop inquiry when puzzled by refuge to a ‘beginning,’ which is all one with ‘another state of nature,’ as it appears to me. But there is no harm in your attacking me, provided you point out that it is the proof I deny, not the probability of a beginning … . I was afraid to point the moral, as much as you can do in the Q.R. about Moses. Perhaps I should have been tenderer about the Koran. Don’t meddle much with that, if at all.

If we don’t irritate, which I fear that we may (though mere history), we shall carry all with us. If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians. It is just the time to strike, so rejoice that, sinner as you are, the Q.R. is open to you.

P.S. … I conceived the idea five or six years ago [1824–25], that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down without giving offence, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine, in order to have as little to say as possible yourself. Let them feel it, and point the moral.”

As you can plainly see, Charles was scheming to deceive the church into accepting his uniformitarian theories even though he knew they contradicted scripture. He wasn't interested in a scientific investigation of the facts:

From a lecture in King’s College London in 1832

I have always been strongly impressed with the weight of an observation of an excellent writer and skillful geologist who said that ‘for the sake of revelation as well as of science—of truth in every form—the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence

He had an agenda and his bias is plain to see. He completely excluded the testimony of scripture apriori before he even began. That is the beginning of why there was a shift in geology as the intelligentsia embraced his theories and began to teach it at Universities. There was no spectacular confirmation of any of this; in fact the evidence he gave about Niagra Falls to supprt his theory has been completely falsified.

That doesn't sound like circular reasoning to you?

It would sound circular if none of those had any other basis for their timelines other than each other, which, not being an expert, I have to guess is not the case. You, the one making the enormous claim that the entire field of geology is unscientific, have to demonstrate that.

I found some more cherry-picking. From that article about mudstones, you take this one quote: "One thing we are very certain of is that our findings will influence how geologists and paleontologists reconstruct Earth's past" and determine from it that the age of the planet will be scientifically revised from many billions of years to a few thousand. You have no basis for that. Also, why are you quoting geologists? That isn't even a science, I thought, right? Is it just because these ones happen to sound like their story could be twisted to agree with yours?

Your argument from incredulity not-withstanding, I think Max Planck sums it up rather nicely: " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

If by that quote you mean that old people tend to have a hard time changing their minds about things in face of contradictory evidence, you're right -- that's human nature. If you mean that scientific theories change randomly because new opinions grow and the old ones die out like cultural habits, you're wrong.

There was a paradigm shift from catastrophism to uniformitarianism in the late 19th century. It was a deliberate move away from the idea of a global flood. To make their theories worked, they needed vast amount of time

This is another grand claim. Can you give a verifiable non-biased (non ID) reference as to the deliberateness of the shift, and the pre-formed idea that they needed to conjure up vast amounts of time? Science doesn't become conventional wisdom without a preponderance of evidence to back it up. It doesn't mean any of it is correct, just that there's a lot of supporting evidence.

In other words, you believe whatever the scientists say and there is no reason to understand the alternative viewpoint.

No. You're the one making ridiculous claims. I'm rebutting for fun, for sport. I don't believe your religion is real. I trust scientists more than dogmatists, and if I have to choose how to spend 1.5 hours, it's going to be reading Feynman or watching TYT or studying math or practising card tricks. You brought up the topic, and I happen to only care enough about it to rebut a bit, not to dedicate hours to it. Also, you have a history here of providing horribly unscientific quotes and references without any attempt at intellectual honesty, and based on that, I can guess the quality of that video, and I don't need to spend 1.5 hours only to be disappointed in myself for trying. If I were really that curious, I would go to the geology department of my university and ask some professors about the circular argument, and what the original basis was for the dating. If you care that much about actually finding the truth, you'll do just that. But I think you're too afraid to learn something contradictory to your dogma.

It's all predicated upon the philosophy of deep time. Deep time is the cornerstone of modern research, and it supported by flimsy, circumstantial evidence.

Non-ID reference for the flimsiness required for grand claims.

You're cherry-picking. That sentence isn't the key one. I'm not sure what is meant by that sentence (the use of "constraint" is ambiguous), but it would be utterly unscientific if it meant that the stratigraphic position pre-determined the outcome. Geology would be scientistic nonsense like ID, not science.

Yes, and that is the point. If Geology worked like that it would be scientific nonsense, and it does work like that. The stratigraphic position is determined by the index fossils and radiometric dating. The age of the index fossils is determined by the stratigraphic position and radiometric dating. Radiometric dating itself is "checked" by stratigraphic positioning. That doesn't sound like circular reasoning to you?

On the other side the date is determined by the uniformitarian assumptions about radioactive decay rates in the past, and many other things. It assumes, among other things, that the rate will never change. As I showed in my reply the Bicyclerepairman, the rates can indeed change.

Even the next two sentences demonstrate this: "There is no way for a geologist to choose what numerical value a radiometric date will yield, or what position a fossil will be found at in a stratigraphic section. Every piece of data collected like this is an independent check of what has been previously studied."

Now this is the intellectually dishonest part. They say they can't choose where a fossil will be, but they have already the determined that the presence of certain fossils and radiometric dating igneous layers above and below it determines the age of that layer. They don't choose where a fossil is, but they do choose what the age of the layer is that contains the fossil based on their assumptions. So they are basically saying that radiometric dating and stratigraphy is validated by index fossils and radiometric dating, and vice-versa.

The date that is returned is indeed chosen by the scientists as it is based on uniformitarian assumptions that they've made about the past. Perhaps you don't understand how it works, but there is nothing about the rock which reveals its age. They use the secondary evidence of how much radioactive decay of certain elements they believe have occurred, but if the rates aren't always constant, the measurement is worthless. As I showed in my reply to Bicyclerepairman, even secular scientists have acknowledged the rates can change. Therefore it is unreliable on its own, and what is essentially happening is that they are propping up one unprovable assumption with the evidence interpreted through another unprovable assumption.

If geologists were in the habit of treating data this way, scientifically-minded people who entered the field would be disgusted and leave, and form their own new scientific discipline of the study of the earth. The fact that this hasn't happened means the geological method appears scientific to scientific-minded people, if not dogmatists.

It's far more likely that you, a dogmatist and a non-geologist, are cherry-picking information to come up with data that supports your dogma. Dogmatists, by definition, cannot be relied upon for unbiased information that either challenges or confirms their dogma. Their dogma pre-disposes them to coming to wrong conclusions far more than non-dogmatists.

Your argument from incredulity not-withstanding, I think Max Planck sums it up rather nicely:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it

There was a paradigm shift from catastrophism to uniformitarianism in the late 19th century. It was a deliberate move away from the idea of a global flood. To make their theories worked, they needed vast amount of time. Most of the contention comes down to how fast or slow certain geological features take to form. Scientists have staked all of their modern research on the theory of deep time, and they interpret all of the evidence through that conclusion. In other words, it has become conventional wisdom..IE, dogma. Please read my reply to Bicyclerepairman to see how bias effects interpretation.

If you examine the history of science, you will see that scientists have had it wrong many times and wasted decades and decades of research on things ultimately proven to be false. The near universal agreement of scientists on any issue is not any indicator of truth.

I'll take 10 minutes to respond to your comments, but I'm not taking 1.5 hours to watch more non-scientific nonsense framed in scientific terms. If there were strong enough evidence that the Earth were a few thousand years old, there would be a branch of geologists studying it. And I'm excluding the dogmatic "creation geology". It is pseudoscience.

In other words, you believe whatever the scientists say and there is no reason to understand the alternative viewpoint. Your dismissal of the material as "non-scientific nonsense framed in scientific terms" flatly shows your intellectual incuriousity, not even having looked at it. Dr. Emil is an accomplished geologist and his discussion is framed in the terminology and methodology used in that field. If you want to debate this subject, you should at the bare minimum understand the basics of the position you are defending and the position you are arguing against. Also, the video is about 1 hour with 30 minutes of questions.

FWIW, according to Wikipedia: "Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy". Do you think you can knock all those scientific fields down as well? Have at it.

It's all predicated upon the philosophy of deep time. Deep time is the cornerstone of modern research, and it supported by flimsy, circumstantial evidence. If you can show deep time is false, then all of it crumbles.

Also, "former atheist" means "current dogmatist". You don't find it astounding that his conversion happened to coincide with his discovery that the evidence didn't hold up? I do. Evidence of non-scientific thinking.

It's interesting you're still inventing reasons why you shouldn't watch the video. You don't know anything about the man but you make wrongheaded assumptions about him. Such as that he converted because he had doubts about the evidence in Geology not holding up. Yet, that isn't the reason he converted, and it had nothing to do with his work as a geologist. Your conclusions here are evidence of non-scientific thinking.

Style triumphs over turning radius!

I don't believe it's a matter of success or greatness defined by an economic model. It's about being a genuine, opinion forming individual rather than sheep herded by a marketing department or fragile social trend.

Greatness to me is defined by the individual, not their triumphs.

>> ^grinter:

Wow! that was triumphant. Did they air this?


I would have thought so. Clearly Leno was happy to set him up for his jokes though maybe he wasn't expecting the John Kerry one.

Look! He's got a cigar hanging out of his mouth just like Triumph The Insult Comic Dog!
Oh wait...that's not a cigar!

>> ^PlayhousePals:

>> ^Deano:
triumph would be my choice though FTW is better.

Actually, triumph isn't bad, but given the options, color me FTW [sis boom bah]


PlayhousePals FTW.

>> ^Deano:

triumph would be my choice though FTW is better.


Actually, triumph isn't bad, but given the options, color me FTW [sis boom bah]

*triumph would be my choice though FTW is better.

I think it may be partial nonsense, luck always plays a role in everything, that said I do believe he was a skilled leader and a shrewd businessman, but some people act as if Christ just died again.
It's funny how someone could be an abject failure and also be a pompous gasbag and at the end people will remember you as a pompous gasbag, but if you're successful it's as if people will forget all the gasbaggery and you just become someone who was successful. For me, personally, I don't care if they made dollar or a bajillion dollars during their lives, at the end they were still a pompous gasbag.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^00Scud00:
What is that supposed to mean exactly? When I hear that he was really good at what he did I'm not sure just what it is that I'm supposed to be getting from that statement, am I supposed to respect him for that? Charles Manson was really good at getting other people to commit murder for him, should he get my respect too? After hearing more about Edison I think that it's a pretty good comparison, they both hired a lot of smart people to work for them and then they both took all the credit for themselves, although it's probably partially our own fault as well, as a society we do love putting people on pedestals.

My only point is that all the arguments that amount to him being in the right place at the right time, as if he had nothing to do with his or Apple's success and just stumbled into a pile of talent and went along for the ride, are nonsense.
Watch something like Triumph of the Nerds and you'll see those supposedly exploited Apple employees praising him for bringing out their best. Was he a pompous gasbag? Yes. Did he have a way of inspiring and driving people to new heights? You bet your fucking ass, he did.
You don't have to respect him but to pretend that being a leader like Jobs isn't a skill... well, if it's not, why aren't you surrounded by geniuses who make you rich?

>> ^00Scud00:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
dark comedy
Steve Jobs knew how to get the most out of people. He knew how to inspire people. He knew how to manage and utilize people for maximum benefit. He knew when to steal an idea and how to make it work. He was not an inventor; he was a cunning and ruthless business leader and people love and hate him for it.
Anyone who says Steve Jobs was "just" anything is a fool. You may hate what he did, but he was damn good at it.

What is that supposed to mean exactly? When I hear that he was really good at what he did I'm not sure just what it is that I'm supposed to be getting from that statement, am I supposed to respect him for that? Charles Manson was really good at getting other people to commit murder for him, should he get my respect too? After hearing more about Edison I think that it's a pretty good comparison, they both hired a lot of smart people to work for them and then they both took all the credit for themselves, although it's probably partially our own fault as well, as a society we do love putting people on pedestals.


My only point is that all the arguments that amount to him being in the right place at the right time, as if he had nothing to do with his or Apple's success and just stumbled into a pile of talent and went along for the ride, are nonsense.

Watch something like Triumph of the Nerds and you'll see those supposedly exploited Apple employees praising him for bringing out their best. Was he a pompous gasbag? Yes. Did he have a way of inspiring and driving people to new heights? You bet your fucking ass, he did.

You don't have to respect him but to pretend that being a leader like Jobs isn't a skill... well, if it's not, why aren't you surrounded by geniuses who make you rich?

A drunk walks into an upscale pub and, after a while, leans up against the bar.
"A snifter of Louis XIII," he slurs and drops three $100 bills on the bar.
The bartender, taken aback for a moment, looks the disheveled man up and down.
"Big spender!" the bartender says, pouring his drink.
"Life is good," the drunk replies, and promptly tosses back the cognac.
The bartender takes a second look at the man; his hair is a mess and his suit hasn't seen a dry cleaner in a while, and he swears the man smells faintly of urine. Hardly someone who can afford such a fine cognac.
"Inheritance?" the bartender presses.
The man looks up.
"No, no...I bet people. And I always win," the drunk smirks.
"What do you mean always?" the bartender asks.
The drunk takes a moment and looks around the bar.
"Here. You see that glass over there?" He points to a an empty mug of beer at the end of the bar, 20 feet away. "I'll bet you $100 I can piss in it from here."
Impossible! the bartender thinks. "You're on," the bartender says, shaking the drunk's hand (and quickly wiping it off on his apron).
Unsteadily, the drunk climbs up on top of the bar, pulls his dick out and begins peeing everywhere. He stumbles and steps in his own piss, causing him to slip and he plummets off the bar. The bartender looks over the railing and sees the man lying flat on his back, hands flailing, as his piss arcs up into the air and hits him directly in the face. The bartender erupts with laughter at the comical sight, slapping his hand on the bar in triumph.
Suddenly, across the room, a man shouts in anger and rushes the bar. "Are you fucking kidding me?!" he screams.
Surprised, the bartender says "What?! What?"
The angry man points down at the drunk and yells, "He just bet me a thousand dollars that he could piss all over your bar and you'd laugh about it!"