It almost looks like you could put the little one inside the medium one and the medium one inside the big one. I mean if they were hollowed out, but who would ever think of something sooo ridiculous.

The cradle is better than the track because it allows for larger weights, where the track would require a denser material or hollow particles; but the track is easier for measuring incoming and outgoing force because on a steady grade, it’s simply a measure of distance, which is easy to capture roughly, even without a camera.

If momentum = velocity*mass, then doubling the velocity will double the momentum. Using the cradle, if you drop a ball from very very close to the first stationary ball, a single ball will move from the other side and move a very very short distance. If you then drop the ball from perpendicular, a single ball will move from the other side, and rise to (nearly) perpendicular. I have seen this much in my own observations. I don't think we need to do any calculations to understand that the impact velocity in the first essay is way less than half the impact velocity in the second essay (we don’t need exact numbers; we just need to know that the impact velocity is more than double). That means we have met your criteria for increasing the momentum to more than that of two balls at the first velocity, yet one ball still comes out.

A mental model to demonstrate my theory of “two particles in = two impacts = two particles out” is to imagine a bit of sponge between the last two balls in a Newton’s cradle. Pull the second ball out (which will push the first ball ahead of it) to a great enough height that the momentum of the outside ball’s impact is enough to completely squeeze the sponge and cause a second impact wave. The second ball would impact measurably later than the first, and before the ejected particle came back. Pretty clearly, two balls will emerge from the other side. This is what I think is happening on a micro scale when two independent balls are dropped together.>> ^oritteropo:

Thanks <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/smile.gif">
I was actually going to suggest that the first part of the experiment should be fairly easy to replicate, with a track and marbles or ball bearings or similar. Unless you have a constant grade the velocity (and therefore momentum) calculations will be a bit tedious, and it occurs to me that angular momentum may have some effect too, so perhaps a video camera and some marks on the track (or sensors and a microcontroller) to directly measure the velocity just prior to impact would be easier. To confirm or disprove my assertion you want to keep increasing the momentum of impact until it's more than the momentum of a two balls, and see what happens.
There are videos of a Newton's cradle type setup only with different sized balls, I might go looking tonight.
>> ^messenger:
That shoulda been @oritteropo too.

I know my momma loves me
I know my poppa loves me
I know the camera loves me
I can tell my brother loves me
I know that Boston loves
And San Francisco loves me
I love the city back,
I just can't help it, it's so lovely

I'm in my lucky underwear, i'm feeling debonair
If it's a lonely trip to heaven, I'm already there
I'm in the bedroom i'm like stepping like I'm Fred Astaire
I make it happen, battlerapping at my Teddy Bear
When I was twelve I'd leave my door open a crack
afraid if getting busted sneaking porno on my mac
I guess I was a freak
Until I got caught last week
(who's been loving you?)
I was reading Booker T, I threw the book at me
I go for the lookers but they never look at me
I would get a hooker if I could unhook her bra
I'd be looking soft as soon as she took her top. off
let's go rolling in a broken winnebago
stop and smoke a bowl out of a hollowed out potato
It's hash now, but it's hash browns soon
(who's been loving you?)

I know that Jesus loves me
I know that buddha loves
The fucking easter Bunny
and the ghost of gandhi love me
I know that santa loves me
I think my Aunties love me
I know my Grandma loved me
she thought I was handsome trust me

this insanity, that's heredity
it's my family, we can let it be
wish I pretended that mom and dad are dead to me
But i love my dad, that motherfucker read to me
my first words were "where's the love?"
mad smug, assed up on a bearskin rug
fashodo, mom'll show you the photo
(who's been loving you?)
I do embarassing better
I could wear a pink sweater
with a pair of slick pleather pants
derelicte e-va-ry day and it's well known
that I hop off stage with my cell phone
fake a dropped call when everybody's near me
and shout "I love you mom!" so everybody hears me
I need to and true nothing new but
(who's been loving you?)

Even though I owe them money
I think it's pretty likely
that my whole family loves me
My lovers tend to like me
I know my homies love me
My teachers loved to hate me
The haters love to fuck with me
the fickle love me lately

I'm a percussionist. I never knew guitar
it's cheesy, but I'm stunting like a superstar
it's easy man I'm hopping out a moving car
call me weezy cause I'm coughing at the hookah bar
I don't do cigars, but I got hella game
I can make a lady out of styling gel and cellophane
so you can yell my name, I make the bed frame move
(who's been loving you?)
me and my better friends are heading to the town strip
if they don't let us in we'll never take roundtrip
because I took an hour picking out my outfit
and then I took another slicking down a cowlick
and I like house sitting, but fuck it now's different
I'm going out and there ain't a bouncer for cowtipping
So I'ma tear this joint up
And i'ma party till the hoofs point up
(who's been loving you?)

this is for Charles Barkley
This is for Poison Ivy
This it's for Draco Malfoy
And it's for Bill O'Reilly
This is for Ned Mencia
It's for the corporate lawyers
it's for the backseat drivers
And for my friend Ann Coulter

>> ^Quboid:

Serious question - do Americans respond well to things like that flag in the background?
If David Cameron came out and spoke in front of a massive Union Jack, I and many others would think it looks embarrassing, like he's trying too hard. The flags at the side would be fine; personally I could live without them but that's within the realms of each to their own.


More like they respond poorly to its absence. Back in the '08 election Obama said he wouldn't wear a flag pin on his lapel because words and actions should speak louder than hollow symbols. It didn't take him long to start wearing it again, and as far as I know he still does.

To a large extent, no pun intended, obese people want to find out why they are a "victim" of obesity. The explosion of obesity, especially in the USA, is rather easily explained if you use some common sense. What has evolution designed us for, in terms of our metabolism? Humans have had to work for what they eat, and that food has always been relatively unprocessed and calorie deficient. Now we are sedentary, programmed to eat a certain amount until we feel "full" and that food is VERY calorie dense. Presto, an epidemic of obesity. I mean really, is it that hard to understand? Yes, some people are more prone to become obese. We all know people with a "hollow leg" that seem to eat incredible amounts of food, and yet they don't get obese. So, your body type does influence it.
I'm all for science that makes it easier to lose weight. We know people have a hard time fighting their compulsions, whether it be tobacco, alcohol, drugs, or food. But, all those things are choices. A cheeseburger doesn't just jump down your throat. There is no "I can't lose weight." Yes you can, if your willpower is greater than your compulsion, and if you go back to the habits that evolution designed you for. One reason obesity rates are greater in the US is the average person's caloric expenditure is less here. Americans walk about 1/3 as much distance per year as compared to Europeans. American cities are sprawling and walking is not an efficient means of getting stuff done. Plus, there are now scooters in every Walmart now, so the obese can walk even less.
I do strenuous exercise several times a week and I try to eat reasonably. Frankly, I don't like exercise that much. I don't get any "high" from it. But I know it's good for me, actually, THE MOST important thing I can do to benefit my health. It's a choice. Everyone has choice, except I guess the kids that grow up in homes where parents ply them with calorie dense foods. The parents don't have to, but they do. Every time they go to the grocery, they have choice. The pop tarts don't jump off the shelve and into their carts.
I just get tired of the "victim" mentality, that's more prominent in the US than anywhere I know.

>> ^conan:

incredibly stupid tabloid science. i'm amazed that there're still people who can differentiate between cause and correlation. fat parents are having fat kids, is it genetics? no, it's because whatever the reason for your bad eating habits, you pass them down to your kids. what to you expect from your kids when you only eat junk? they'll eat it too. either because they mimic you or because you're the one who feeds them! congratulations, now you have perfect excuses: what once were "heavy bones" now are "hunger hormones" and genetics. this "documentation" didn't provide any hard facts, just hormones with names in quotation marks and similar snake oil stuff.
Step 1: stop doing sports, eat more junk and surprise! you'll become overweight. Step 2: catch up on exercising and change your diet and surprise again! your weight will drop. it's common sense. and this comes from someone who's still perfecting step 1... ;-)


I think you're misunderstanding the point of it. Everything you say is correct to a degree. I didn't hear them say that the sole cause of obesity is hormonal, not once. I'd be surprised if you watched it all the way through. The way you feed your children and the habits you give them is absolutely the root cause, at least I would say so. Then society/culture, marketing, advertising fast food. The cheapest foods are junk, that also plays a part.

But what they're saying here, is that the reason some people end up getting wildy overweight and not just a bit chunky is because there isn't the same hormone to tell them they're full. The amount some fat people eat would make a regular sized person sick, in just one meal.

I don't believe obesity is genetic either, I am one of those people who inherited my mothers shitty eating habits, was overweight as a child and now have to suffer the consequences of that. However my sister was fed the same way, offered the same things, but was always skinny because she ate like a bird (one years she would only eat bread rolls, haha). My children are two very different types, too. My daughter can eat more than the average adult, you know that old saying, hollow legs? But she puts weight on if I let her eat the wrong things or every time she feels hungry, so over the years I've had to very much restrict her. Now she tends to make the right choices so hopefully that will go through to adult life with her and I've not passed down the same bad habits, however she would eat every half hour if she listened to her belly. My son is just the opposite. If he's not hungry I could offer him his favourite anything and he'd turn it down. Lucky bugger!

Then there's the thing where my sister all of a sudden in her late teens became overweight. That didn't make much sense. But her eating habits had very much changed. The bit in this doc where they were testing identical twins where one was overweight and one wasn't was fascinating and tied things up much neater.


>> ^snoozedoctor:

Getting fat is like filling a bathtub with water. If you run the spigot faster than the drain, it fills up. Now THAT is heavy science. Burn more calories than you eat = weight loss.


You're talking about how to lose weight, a science we all understand This is talking about the reasons some of us gain. It's always pissed me off when bigger people rather than just admit they stuff their faces, try and pass it off as big bones (eh?) or genetics. I'm even rather cynical of people who say they love their weight and being big is beautiful and they want to be like that. I think rather they know how bloody difficult dieting is, not just the losing weight but keeping it off, also I think those people, and bless them for it, accept that they don't want to go through the endless bullshit of dieting and gaining and embrace it. Or they've got some chubby chasers paying them top dollar to watch them eat and balloon to 400 lbs. Food is very very addictive once you've learnt the pleasures of it, just like a drug. It's very hard for anyone who doesn't have a weight issue to understand it, especially since you've been listening to people make endless excuses for it over the years. I think that's what is putting the blinkers on you now when you watch anything with alternative reasons for obesity, you just see it as an excuse.

This is exciting, because what they're saying is if they can recreate these hormones they will be able to find a way of replacing them, which will make the whole dieting process much much easier.

You may feel you have a responsibility to spread what you believe to
be true.

I am commanded by God to do so. It's not optional.

That's all fine and dandy, and I have no problem with that.

Okay..cool.

Going to people who do not agree with you, and have made up their
mind, and telling them they're wrong for believing what you cannot
prove to be certainly true is again an intolerance and disrespectful
view of other people.

Again, I am commanded by God to do so. Although, in this case, I didn't start the conversation about God.

You do NOT have definitive proof, no matter how
much you think you do. You don't. Period.

That's your opinion.
Go ahead and try to
convince them.

You can't argue someone into faith. Only God is capable of changing someones heart.

There's nothing immoral about that. It is immoral to
claim moral superiority and tell people they don't have valid opinions
because they don't share yours.

Would it be immoral to tell a rapist that raping people is wrong?

Do you get why it's wrong for an atheist to berate you for believing
in a god when you cannot prove with empirical evidence he definitely
exists? It's not right. You know why? Because they can't prove with
certainty god doesn't exist either

It doesn't really bother me. I agree though, it would be nice if more atheists would acknowledge their burden of proof.

So, respect each other's beliefs, agree to disagree, and follow the Golden Rule for interacting with others in discussion:

Don't be douchey!

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs; God gives everyone freedom to believe whatever they want. I also see everyone in the image of God. Neither am I interested in arguing; I prefer as little drama as possible.

Why is it wrong for you to believe an atheist has no valid viewpoint
on spirituality? It's really darn simple. First, you equated
spirituality to being right or wrong.

Then, you said he had no valid opinion about it. If you're equating spirituality to morality and ethics, then why do most atheists believe in the idea of right vs
wrong? They have ethics and morality, and theirs isn't subordinate to
yours just because you believe in the existence of God.

Even beyond that, it's absurd. If I don't believe in the role of gov't
in our lives, does that render all my opinions about gov't useless and
always wrong? Since you're all about religion, does that mean all
your thoughts about science are completely invalid? Of course not.

I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying. Rather than drag it out, I am just going to let this drop. I fully acknowledge atheists have valid opinions on morality and ethics.

Why are my religious views irrelevant? It's really simple. I'm not
debating which of our religions is the correct one. I'm debating how
to appropriately discuss religion, morality, and ethics with others.
You are not the final arbiter of truth. Neither am I. Neither is
messenger. We're all struggling to find more truth. Yours isn't more
valid because you're Christian.

Since you're preaching at me about how I should conduct myself, I think it's only fair that you share what you believe in. I think it's relevent, in that context, to see if your behavior lines up to the stanards of conduct of your faith.

You're also not an atheist, yet you seem to know exactly what their
beliefs are about morality. Instead of trying to argue your side,
here's a totally wild idea - why don't you take a little time and
understand where they're coming from before you spout ignorant crap
about what they believe? I'm sure you don't appreciate when people
spout crap about you that isn't true. IE, why don't you use the
Christian Golden Rule?

As a previous unbeliever and skeptic, I am very familiar with what atheists believe and why. Not only from a personal standpoint, but due to the fact that they tell me exactly what they believe all the time. You're really working overtime trying to make a mountain out of a molehill (and not responding to the substance of the conversation), when the point of fact is, there is nothing wrong with my sharing what I believe. If you can tell me I am wrong, I can say that I am right. But I am not even saying that. I am saying God is right, and I believe Him.

You can stop spouting your religious views to justify your utter
disrespect for others and their beliefs. I didn't read a single word
of it. Quite frankly, you're pissing me off, and I would suggest you
re-evaluate how you discuss this topic with others using that tone.
I'm enlightened enough to not hold your douchebaggery against other
devout Christians who are more respectful of others. More often than
not, it's not convincing people to see it your way. It's causing an
irrational recalcitrance against your views. If you truly are a
believer of god and trying to change people's minds to a view like
your own, this isn't the way to do it. Jesus didn't act like a
petulant 5 year old know it all.

What have I said that is so terrible? I'm far from perfect but your accusations are ringing a little hollow. You could try putting away the strawmen and ad homs and actually engage the substance of the conversation. Do you think messanger needs you to defend him? He and I are in familiar territory. Honestly, I am sorry if I have been rude in any way. Though, how is it that you chastise someone about being respectful when you yourself are being disrespectful, anyway? I'm not sure I understand that dynamic.


>> ^heropsycho:

Of course it's fake. There's a reason bird's bones are hollow, and it's not because they make better straws...

Yeah, I agree.. I can't tell if this is good or not. I also can't figure out how this ties in with the old soap opera. ...having just typed that, I remember now the show came back to TV more recently for a brief run. Was that any good? Was it a comedy...?

Last Tim Burton movie that I enjoyed was Sleepy Hollow. Though I never saw Big Fish (looked neat).

>> ^kevingrr:

@ghark
1 - I'm not sure which swipe of Chris Hedges you are referring to. If it is in regard to the Moral Landscape I can only comment that Hedges takes every opportunity to inject himself into the spotlight. Having read the Moral Landscape I can say that the ideas Harris presents CAN be challenged by legitimate thinkers, of which Hedges is not.
Hedges game has been to misrepresent Harris' point of view as written in End of Faith. I would go so far as to call Hedges an all out liar. See my post in this thread:

2 - Where here is Sam blindly racist? He states that acts of terror are more likely to be carried out by young Muslim men than by 5 year old girls or grandmothers.
If I said that black athletes are more likely to be basketball players and white athletes are more likely to be baseball players would that make me racist? Because in terms of professional sports that simply IS the case. Note I am not saying WHY that is the case - I am simply saying it is and the statistics prove it.
As I have said before Sam is not racist, but he is honest about who is most likely to have some bad ideas and he does not like bad ideas.
3. Sam is not a pacifist but he is not a warmonger either. As I listened to the entirety of the interview I noted he had a very nuanced idea of when war, or physical violence of any kind, is justified.
One last link regarding Hedges:
Here


Shouldn't the definition of terrorism (of which there are many) be carefully examined before making that statement? I assume you are using the 'American mainstream media' version, which of course means, an act in which a colored person with a beard tries to inflict injury or death on other (usually white) people. If the definition is not looked at with mainstream-media-tinted spectacles then it would not be a stretch to say that the 105,000+ documented Iraqi civilian casualties since 2003 were caused by American (and allied troops) terrorism. Political and resource motivated civilian slaughter on a massive scale (and on foreign soil) sounds very terrorist-like to me. Using this line of logic, would it not make more statistical sense to worry about young to middle aged white males having access to military training than scanning middle aged Muslim men at airports.

My point is not to blame the US troops, Australian troops were also involved, my point is simply that someone of Harris' intellect should be above the simple fear mongering and use of blatant misleading generalizations that he's demonstrating in this video. He was one of my hero's for a while there, and seeing him for what he truly seems to be leaves me a bit hollow inside.

As far as Hedges goes, he seems to be on the mark most of the time, and is an excellent speaker, however I thought his shots at Harris were pretty poor form (during his book launch) because it just seemed to be a blatant publicity stunt, so I agree with you on that to a degree.

Please take in mind My BS meter couldn't handle more than about 25-30 mins of the video, and as @LukinStone mentions, Harris explains some of his comments in more detail later in the video, I just couldn't make it that far unfortunately. Most of what I was hearing was self-gratification, "a large American city has about a 50% chance of having a nuclear bomb set off in it within the next decade or so", racist comments and some war mongering, there's only so much I can take

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^Reefie:
Ideal slogan for those who want to pretend their world is ideal.

What?
Its not about pretending that your world is ideal, its about understanding that sometimes you can't control where the bombs land and all you can reasonably do is keep your head and try to keep living your life. "Panic and stop everything" doesn't exactly seem like sage advice. In fact, its the very opposite of what one could consider sage - a person of wisdom, who in the stoic sense does not allow destructive emotions to rule their decision making.

Okay first up we haven't had bombs dropped on us in over 65 years. Your reasoning might stand up if we were still subject to the terror of bombs landing on us every night, knowing that the following morning we could be missing friends and that everyone remaining would have the hollow gaunt look of someone who hasn't had a decent night's sleep in years.
Second, this was a propaganda poster. It was intended to encourage people to just accept what was happening around them and to get on with their lives regardless. Nowadays the media has popularised the same propaganda poster so as to encourage people to just ignore what's going on around them on this planet, to just accept it and carry on, don't let it get to us or otherwise we'll question why things are so bad to begin with.
I did not state the opposite should be encouraged. Why is it when someone posts something you disagree with that you immediately presume that person is encouraging the complete opposite? We're a lot more accommodating of varied viewpoints than you might be expecting!
PS If you're in a country where bombs are still being dropped on you regularly either by British or American troops then I can only apologise. Maybe, just maybe, that propaganda poster is helping people cope in such a country.


It's about continuing to do what you do best in difficult circumstances. There's nothing about pretending or accepting anything.

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^Reefie:
Ideal slogan for those who want to pretend their world is ideal.

What?
Its not about pretending that your world is ideal, its about understanding that sometimes you can't control where the bombs land and all you can reasonably do is keep your head and try to keep living your life. "Panic and stop everything" doesn't exactly seem like sage advice. In fact, its the very opposite of what one could consider sage - a person of wisdom, who in the stoic sense does not allow destructive emotions to rule their decision making.


Okay first up we haven't had bombs dropped on us in over 65 years. Your reasoning might stand up if we were still subject to the terror of bombs landing on us every night, knowing that the following morning we could be missing friends and that everyone remaining would have the hollow gaunt look of someone who hasn't had a decent night's sleep in years.

Second, this was a propaganda poster. It was intended to encourage people to just accept what was happening around them and to get on with their lives regardless. Nowadays the media has popularised the same propaganda poster so as to encourage people to just ignore what's going on around them on this planet, to just accept it and carry on, don't let it get to us or otherwise we'll question why things are so bad to begin with.

I did not state the opposite should be encouraged. Why is it when someone posts something you disagree with that you immediately presume that person is encouraging the complete opposite? We're a lot more accommodating of varied viewpoints than you might be expecting!

PS If you're in a country where bombs are still being dropped on you regularly either by British or American troops then I can only apologise. Maybe, just maybe, that propaganda poster is helping people cope in such a country.

Thanks for the thought out response MMD. Actually, my father and grandfather owned guns and kept them in the house. They were former marine and army, and definitely believed in the 2nd amendment. My father even gave me a rifle for a birthday as a child and taught me basic safety and maintenance.

But I never saw them use their guns in an emotional outburst to make some argumentative point. They had too much discipline for behavior like that. The guy in the video is clearly very angry and emotional (from the timbre in his voice) before and while using the gun.

As far as the legality of him doing what he was doing. From my experience, cops can make up a charge if they really want to, and maybe they (and child services) would at least bother the guy enough to make sure he thinks twice before brandishing a gun in this manner and putting it on youtube.

Yeah people shoot at things all the time, but a laptop? I know how they are assembled, and there are several layers of components that make up the machine, including many brittle materials that can easily shatter. Not to mention toxic materials like solder, etc. I doubt this guy has been taking laptops down to the quarry for target practice regularly enough to know how they take a hollow point.>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^longde:
Thinking about it more, what really bothers me about this video is the gratuitous use of the gun. To display that level of intimidation and violence in his home is one thing, but to broadcast it to other youth in his community is reckless.
One unintentional lesson that kids will take from this is that it's acceptable to wave a gun around and shoot off a few rounds to vent your anger and resolve a problem.
If I were a parent in this community, I would be making a few calls to the authorities.
And I'm the guy who supported belt whipping guy. I think gun guy is way worse than belt beating guy.
(also, how did this genius know that there would be no flying shrapnel from the components in the laptop?)

I fully understand and appreciate your concerns here, but once again I'm on the other side of the fence. Maybe just because I grew up on a farm in a rural area where a very high percentage of households owned at least one firearm and most kids in those homes were taught how to responsibly use a gun.
A lot of people think that there isn't really any justification for owning a gun outside of being a soldier or policeman, and that therefore the only way to practice being responsible with a gun is to simply never own or fire one. I would disagree, but if that is the mindset I'm not going to be able to convince anyone otherwise.
Anyway, I don't see his use of the gun as displaying any "intimidation" or "violence", so I don't have any problem with his posting the video on his daughter's facebook and/or youtube or whatever. By shooting the laptop, he wasn't telling his daughter "straighten up or next time its YOU!" (intimidation), he was telling her that actions have consequences and since the laptop is his property he can do whatever he wants with it -- including destroying it rather than have her feel like she is entitled to it.
There are plenty of freely available videos on the internet (even here on the sift, say) where people use firearms in genuinely reckless and irresponsible ways orders of magnitude beyond this one. And that is before considering ubiquitous reckless or malevolent use of firearms in fictional media like movies, etc.
If you were a parent in his community, you would be welcome to call and complain to the authorities, but they would tell you that he definitely didn't do anything against the law. So you'd pretty much be wasting your breath.
About the risk of flying shrapnel, I think that he "knows" that there wouldn't be any (or at least that the risk is acceptably minute) because he has used firearms before. Part of learning to use a gun responsibly (at least, how I would define responsibly) is shooting at things and seeing what happens to them. You shoot a BB gun at cans or bottles set up on posts. You shoot a rifle or handgun at targets at a shooting range or in a rural area with nothing in front of you. You shoot a shotgun at an empty 2-liter bottle thrown up in the air, or at clay pigeons.
While doing those things, you notice that whatever you are shooting at generally doesn't explode like it does in the movies. If any fragments fly off (not likely), they won't have much mass, they won't be traveling very fast (vastly slower than the bullet), and they will most likely be traveling in the same general direction as the bullet -- not back towards you. Physics dictates that his shooting the laptop was relatively safe, even at close range like that.

Good right up until the end. What makes him think that Ron Paul can affect any change anyway?

Look at Obama. He just signed a bill but stated that he would never enact it. Does this not show that even the president is subordinate to some other power that is not the electorate?

If Ron Paul gets elected president then the West will finally see how hollow their idols are. Wield Nietzsche philsophical hammer and let the idols ring.

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

The problem with your theory is, I have done the research, and I do know what the source material says. I understand the theory of evolution better than most atheists I have met. I use the quotations because they are hostile witnesses to my position which gives the argument even more force. It doesn't matter where I've gotten them from; that is irrelevent. The evidence I am presenting is what is relevent.

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

Most atheists I've spoken to who criticize the bible haven't actually read it. I've already told you my background so you don't have an argument. I have studied these things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

You haven't offered any criticism of my position and you haven't demonstrated any actual knowledge of this subject, except that which is patently false. The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, including biological systems. Evolutionists attempt to weasel out of that by declaring that they are 'open systems' and thus immune to entropy because of the energy from the sun, but as I showed this does nothing to show where information comes from, so you cannot explain it away.

I've read a lot of science textbooks, and a lot of scientific literature. When I was agnostic, I read volumes and volumes of it, and I stay abreast of the latest discoveries. Your accusations all ring hollow, especially considering you have failed to show you understand the subject on your own.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

What you're doing is using a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. You're absolutely right, that is a terrible argument. That isn't the type of argument I have made. When I brought up thermodynamics, I was responding to this comment:

"The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science."

I showed it was your position that was betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science. My argument was rational, well founded, and based on solid evidence, yet you have taken the low road of trying to assasinate my character, or outright say that I don't actually know what I am talking about. Again, it is you who have failed to adaquately demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Instead of addressing my argument, you have made the argument about me, as you have admitted to, and that is what is dishonest here.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

It's called confirmation bias. A good example of this is looking at the question of the origin of life and believing it must have evolved despite having no actual evidence that it did.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

Science is an institution run by individuals with individual beliefs and goals. Over 40 percent of biologists, astronomers and mathematicians believe in God. Belief in God is not incompatible with doing good science, nor is science in and of itself something bad. There is however a concerted effort, on the part of evolutionists, to push their version of origins on the rest of us, and they have often used legal means to do so. Evolution is pushed on the public like it is a proven fact and it is not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

What you're doing is jumping to a bunch of unfounded conclusions and drawing extremely weak inferences about what I have or haven't done, and then extrapolating that to a bunch of highly prejudiced judgements against me personally, and doing so in a haughty way, as if you are talking to a child. You have completely failed to include anything of substance in this reply. It is all just a sad attempt to write me off without actually addressing any of my arguments. Until you actually address the meat of my reply with a point by point refutation, this entire reply can be chopped up to one gigantic ad hom.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

Or you have completely mischaracterized me, as I have demonstrated. Again, you want so badly for this to be about me. Even if I was doing everything you said I am doing, my arguments, if they were accurate, would still stand. You haven't moved one inch closer to disproving anything I've said. It doesn't matter where I've gotten the information, what matters is if it is correct or not. Regardless, I do understand the subject matter, and demonstrably better than you do thus far.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

You aren't going to change anyones mind with this low grade excuse for an argument. This isn't about me, it's about the evidence. You say my evidence is invalid because I don't understand the subject matter, which is fallacious. The evidence is valid whether I understand it or not. However, I do understand it, and the problem here is you have no basis to criticize me because you're the one who hasn't demonstrated any understanding. You have even demonstrated the wrong understanding. However, the difference between you and I is that I will give you enough credit to assume you are a reasonably intelligent person who isn't just pretending to understand it. I am still waiting for you to prove it, however. Your attempt to make this argument about me has failed, because I have shown all of your claims about me to be false, and it is logically fallacious in the first place. If you want to continue, address my arguments directly and prove you actually know something. If my arguments are incorrect, feel free to show me why, at any time.


>> ^IAmTheBlurr: