There have been a few possible theories, a more like a strong hypothesis, that has alternate ideas for the presence of Dark Matter. One of which is simply more a misunderstanding by us of the nature of what is happening at a fundamental level concerning the internal structure and spin of galaxies; their part and full presentation into the full dynamics--the true inner workings--isn't fully realized yet, but they assert a new reason for the discrepancy in how the galaxy spins at different radii in that galaxy and in fact kill off the need for Dark matter. Secondly, it's our mathematics involved that have created this absolute need for Dark Matter to even exist, which is explained in the last part about this subject below. Lastly, a few findings like the outer arms, the large gas/ice/dust/etc... volumes (nebulae and plasma lit regions) and the stars (and their systems)--their movement rate on the outside edge of their respective galaxies, which if like "normal physics" (I quote that because if we made a mistake, the fault will always be ours and not the Universes ) would seem to show that the inside should rotate faster than the outside edges, which is not what happens at all--they rotate at the SAME speed. The actual math involved to solve this little mystery shows that there HAS TO be a large chunk of the Universe missing to get the mathematics to finally spit out numbers that work out. They have provided their own set of new cosmological equations that describe the motion within a galaxy; as of this writing they have tried the new math equations on four different galaxies that are known well. The reason this one has most likely been called a theory as of late is due to their new equations completely and correctly describing the motion of those galaxies, from origin, even until their virtual deaths--that makes this small theory the strongest front-runner for getting rid of Dark Matter altogether. This was a large paragraph, I made it small to make it a tad more readable.

But, Dark Matter is a very well-held theory for the scientific community though and it still has quite a bit of evidence for it's case as well. It has much more proof than this smaller theory does, but it's good to keep an open mind and let your mind run free with new ideas every so often as it may give you a new idea as well. Due to an idea I heard from a physicist: Lawrence Krauss, I was thinking about the Universe and some implications concerning Quantum Mechanics with possible larger scale events that are occurring with cosmologists looking for ways to explain things, but they are basically on the run--the fresh ideas are gone. Because, of the little creative idea above that explains away Dark Matter it triggered a provocative idea, one that I'm not qualified to answer or really even guess at (beyond it's initial qualities)--so I will send the idea off and see if they can maybe visualize what I'm implying just a little more clearly. I'm not entirely sure there will be a correct way to view this idea due to it's near "virtual"-like impact on our Universe, one that may be unprovable except for three possible ways I can think of. Two of which are beyond are capability right now, but we will have the ability later and the last using Quantum Foam experiments to look for certain types of superposition maybe even using entanglement (it would need to be a semi-radical setup that is "one-sided" in nature and using information concerning Dark Energy, as I'll finish here at the end of the sentence) that may relate to information that might be probable to gain through later scientific gathering, like the expansion rate or if it's nature is confined merely to space-time or if it actually occurs eventually all the way down to the subatomic.

I had the idea that perhaps Dark Energy could actually be the tell-tale signs of an existing second Big Bang merely hidden under our collective noses due too space-time and it's nature (maybe it's fairly "structurally sound" when it comes to a bubble fight) or it's an active component of the Quantum Mechanical universe, perhaps directly attributed to the Quantum Foam. I'm wondering--and of course I've got no real idea what a Universe "pressing" upon us might do, if this could even happen--if Dark Energy is the pressure wave of perhaps a secondary Universe, probably very much like ours,but the logical, mathematical,constants, and theories have either become slightly different to a lot or the Universe is unlike anything in our book; but I'm assuming it came from the same Quantum Foam that got us here which means it may have more in common with us that we know.

I'm going to try and get some more feedback on this and see if it proves to go elsewhere and opens new doors.

I wasn't thinking about Leviticus, just that that tattoo doesn't fit in with my picture of squeamish Christian Youtubers. Also, yeah, the site is obvious satire, though it tries to play straight faced. The Landover Baptist Church does it much better and, judging by the comments, actually fools many people (http://www.landoverbaptist.net).
>> ^RFlagg:

What's wrong with the tattoo? The ban on tattoos is an Old Testament law ... Anyhow looking at the website it is satire for sure, and perhaps so much so it might not qualify for Poe, which I generally take for stuff that is a bit harder to tell.
>> ^wormwood:
It's gotta be a joke. The tattoo, for one, gives it away in the first few seconds.
Also: "Birth Cannon" LOL!
>> ^MarineGunrock:
Shouldn't this be in parody? Please, someone tell me this is all a joke! I laughed too hard for it to be serious!

What's wrong with the tattoo? The ban on tattoos is an Old Testament law, even the ones that haven't been given a New Testament exemption like food, are moot now... well except the ban on gays, God still hates them. This is why Christians can wear mixed/man made fabrics and not worry about breaking Levitical law, have tattoos, why we don't have slaves anymore despite the Bible clearly saying it is okay and why Christians can ignore the part about the Earth not moving and accept that it goes around the Sun, because the Old Testament doesn't apply...unless it fits your hate filled agenda... I mean love filled agenda, because those anti-gay laws are there because they love the gays but hate the sin and want them to come to Christ... <eyeroll>

Anyhow looking at the website it is satire for sure, and perhaps so much so it might not qualify for Poe, which I generally take for stuff that is a bit harder to tell.

>> ^wormwood:

It's gotta be a joke. The tattoo, for one, gives it away in the first few seconds.
Also: "Birth Cannon" LOL!
>> ^MarineGunrock:
Shouldn't this be in parody? Please, someone tell me this is all a joke! I laughed too hard for it to be serious!

Apparently you can't read particularly well.

The original comment I was responding to said basically it can't be that difficult dealing with students, administrators, and idiotic parents.

I said until he actually has to do it, he has no idea wtf he's talking about.

There's no double standard, here. I have no problems with people being critical of the education system. But idiotic comments describing a teacher's job as easy when they have no personal experience whatsoever is out of line. Do the job before you talk as if it's an easy job. Anyone can sit on their butts and say someone else's job is easy without any factual basis.

I'm guessing it must have been difficult for your reading teachers when you went to school...

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
Excuse me, I never said people can't be critical of the system. I said that someone who sits there and judges how difficult it is to be a teacher without actually teaching is a completely unqualified judge on the matter.
That's the rules - you don't talk out of your butt about things you have no idea about if you actually are looking for truth instead of what you want to be true.

Mmmm, I feel like you're changing your meaning. And maybe contradicting yourself? So you're saying we can be critical but we're not qualified to be critical? What does that mean exactly?
The truth is if you pay for a service you maintain the right to scrutinize that service. Let me give you an example. You got to a restaurant for dinner, but your waiter gives you bad service (doesn't take your order for half an hour, doesn't refill your drinks, brings food out late and cold, etc.).
When you complain he asks if you've ever waited tables. Let's assume you haven't. Does that negate your right to evaluate the waiter's performance? Should you instead just hand over your money graciously and leave because you're unqualified to judge him?

>> ^heropsycho:

Excuse me, I never said people can't be critical of the system. I said that someone who sits there and judges how difficult it is to be a teacher without actually teaching is a completely unqualified judge on the matter.
That's the rules - you don't talk out of your butt about things you have no idea about if you actually are looking for truth instead of what you want to be true.


Mmmm, I feel like you're changing your meaning. And maybe contradicting yourself? So you're saying we can be critical but we're not qualified to be critical? What does that mean exactly?

The truth is if you pay for a service you maintain the right to scrutinize that service. Let me give you an example. You got to a restaurant for dinner, but your waiter gives you bad service (doesn't take your order for half an hour, doesn't refill your drinks, brings food out late and cold, etc.).

When you complain he asks if you've ever waited tables. Let's assume you haven't. Does that negate your right to evaluate the waiter's performance? Should you instead just hand over your money graciously and leave because you're unqualified to judge him?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^rottenseed:
Well this is what you wanted you litigious cunts. Did you know that if a certified nurse is involved with or witnesses a car accident she WILL NOT help in any medical fashion. If she does and something goes wrong, she is liable. Everything is about liability these days. And what do you want this police officer to do? He's following protocol. Oh yea, so many of you fucking heroes would have saved that (SUICIDAL) guy, but why didn't you? Huh? Why didn't you dickheads go save him? Because you're not qualified to swim out there and do it? Well guess what...NEITHER ARE COPS! You're a moron on this one, Cenk.

Dear boiling water,
Please won't you simmer down?
Yours,
blankfist


I'm at high altitude so it's easier to make me boil


...you statist scum

>> ^rottenseed:

Well this is what you wanted you litigious cunts. Did you know that if a certified nurse is involved with or witnesses a car accident she WILL NOT help in any medical fashion. If she does and something goes wrong, she is liable. Everything is about liability these days. And what do you want this police officer to do? He's following protocol. Oh yea, so many of you fucking heroes would have saved that (SUICIDAL) guy, but why didn't you? Huh? Why didn't you dickheads go save him? Because you're not qualified to swim out there and do it? Well guess what...NEITHER ARE COPS! You're a moron on this one, Cenk.


Dear boiling water,

Please won't you simmer down?

Yours,
blankfist

Well this is what you wanted you litigious cunts. Did you know that if a certified nurse is involved with or witnesses a car accident she WILL NOT help in any medical fashion. If she does and something goes wrong, she is liable. Everything is about liability these days. And what do you want this police officer to do? He's following protocol. Oh yea, so many of you fucking heroes would have saved that (SUICIDAL) guy, but why didn't you? Huh? Why didn't you dickheads go save him? Because you're not qualified to swim out there and do it? Well guess what...NEITHER ARE COPS! You're a moron on this one, Cenk.

I'm not sure how you see yourself as any less dogmatic than I am..and Im sorry for making you sad. I hope that you haven't wasted too many kleenexs on me, but save them for yourself..you'll need them when you figure out evolution is wrong.

Here is the key portion of your wiki article:

"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor"

What we see in the fossil record is that when something new shows up its all at once and is fully formed and then never changes. Ie, no true transitionals have ever been discovered. What has never been witnessed in the fossil record is steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different.

You think this is a gap? It's a super massive black hole, and the vacuum may be in your head if you believe it. Here's some info:

John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.

The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.

I think you're the one who needs to re-evaluate your beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6EiN-3uWak




>> ^Skeeve:
>> ^shinyblurry:
the bar is still incredibly low..one of the best transitional forms out there is based on a whales nostril..i would find that embarassing if i believed in evolution. show me something convincing. also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
You've said that you aren't ignorant of science, yet you ignore the science that proves these things. You, and people like you, are not really interested in the facts, you are interested in finding all the gaps so you can point and say "aha, there is a god!" I am truly saddened by people like you - it breaks my heart that you can be so smart and so blind at the same time.
But you asked for yet more proof so I am at your service.
A (comparatively) short list of transitional forms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
As for the claim that mutations not increasing information in a genome:
"We have observed the evolution of
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."
You can look up those scholarly articles if you actually don't want to remain ignorant. They are listed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

>> ^shinyblurry:

the bar is still incredibly low..one of the best transitional forms out there is based on a whales nostril..i would find that embarassing if i believed in evolution. show me something convincing. also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.

You've said that you aren't ignorant of science, yet you ignore the science that proves these things. You, and people like you, are not really interested in the facts, you are interested in finding all the gaps so you can point and say "aha, there is a god!" I am truly saddened by people like you - it breaks my heart that you can be so smart and so blind at the same time.

But you asked for yet more proof so I am at your service.

A (comparatively) short list of transitional forms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

As for the claim that mutations not increasing information in a genome:
"We have observed the evolution of

increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."

You can look up those scholarly articles if you actually don't want to remain ignorant. They are listed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

>> ^Ryjkyj:

You support giving unemployed people money, but not feeding them?


I support those that worked and paid into the pot getting a check for the "just in case" moments.

My true gripe with food stamps is that the process is completely broken. Buy soda, beef jerky, red bull, muscle supplements, you name it. Sell them to your next door neighbor if you want... Now, if they had a process that directly feeds someone with decent food, that's a bit different (Say, government sponsored food kitchens?)

WIC? I can agree with that program because it has some accountability measures that makes it harder to abuse. But even that doesn't prevent making a buck when the reason is not legit.

On a side note--the verification process for unemployment is lacking too. I claimed it for about two-three months, and, well, I could apply online with three jobs that I was not qualified for... Another reason unemployment irks me is that a corporation can fight you for nearly as long as they want and you cannot really do dick about it...

But that's in Florida, may be different other places.

>> ^smooman:

if singing for 30 years makes you qualified, how is that different from my mother who's been singing for almost 50 years, my brother who's been singing for goin on 20 years, my friend Mandy who's also been at it for goin on 20 years? whats your point? that you made a lil money singing in cover bands that puts you in a better position than them? well pat yourself on the back for getting paid gas money to sing someone elses songs (me and my brother both were in a successful cover band at one time, me on guitar and him singing, it doesnt pay shit, so stop bragging, its nothing to brag about)
my point being, i got 4 other opinions to your one, they all disagree with you, so i win. nanny nanny boo boo!


I'm bragging because I list my qualifications? And your not but doing the same exact thing at the beginning of both of your rants? Then telling me how I should HERE your brother sing Faithfully in a karaoke bar? Hypocrite much?

OK, again with the putting words in my mouth thing. Where exactly did I say your mother, brother, and friend were not qualified to have an opinion? And how exactly do you keep missing the point that I NEVER SAID SHE DIDN'T SUCK.

FYI, we were paid anywhere from $2800-$3200 a week for our gigs depending on where we played. That's slightly better than "a lil gas money" or that "it doesn't pay shit" sorry to say. Back in the late 80's early 90's that was pretty good cash for playing the bar scene. As I said, I made a living doing this. That means I supported myself. If you were "in a very successful" cover band as you say, you wouldn't be bitching about the pay, because I certainly wasn't.

[Edit] Oh and on your "point". There seems to be more opinions in this thread backing mine up than yours, so actually you don't win shit.

>> ^Zifnab:

Part of the dupeof process automatically makes the duplicate embed a backup of the original video. So think about this example. I sifted a vide that was a 12 minute excerpt of another video that was an hour and a half long which was then called as a dupe:
My Sift (12 minutes):
http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-A-Story-About-Race?
noredirect
First Video (Hour and a half):
http://videosift.com/video/A-Conversation-with-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson
I would certainly say that my 12 minute sift does not qualify to be a backup of the hour and a half long video. If it is considered to be a dupe, then we need a mechanism to remove this incorrect backup.
(I'm not upset about losing my sift, I just wanted to provide an example)
I personaly do not think that a small excerpt of a much longer video should be considered a dupe when it has a narrow focus vs. the broad focus of the longer video. Unfortunately this would mean that things are not black and white and would require some common sense and judgement which can be too much to ask...


Great point.

Part of the dupeof process automatically makes the duplicate embed a backup of the original video. So think about this example. I sifted a vide that was a 12 minute excerpt of another video that was an hour and a half long which was then called as a dupe:

My Sift (12 minutes):
http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-A-Story-About-Race?noredirect

First Video (Hour and a half):
http://videosift.com/video/A-Conversation-with-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson

I would certainly say that my 12 minute sift does not qualify to be a backup of the hour and a half long video. If it is considered to be a dupe, then we need a mechanism to remove this incorrect backup.
(I'm not upset about losing my sift, I just wanted to provide an example)

I personaly do not think that a small excerpt of a much longer video should be considered a dupe when it has a narrow focus vs. the broad focus of the longer video. Unfortunately this would mean that things are not black and white and would require some common sense and judgement which can be too much to ask...

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

Look for the comma...

By the time I found the comma, the apostrophe already had me thinking about nano-sized sphincters.

Oh, and you might want to edit you last post. Grammar is even more important in html than it is in prose.
--- ---

Shepppard, you are probably thinking of Thomas Aquinas and the Miracle of the Herrings. I suppose being one of the most-influential philosophers of all time, religious or otherwise, does not qualify you for sainthood.