You did not listen? How could you have heard anything? Main stream media swayed its followers into a false bliss of an easy sure thing Clinton win.


The other 1/2 of the county listen to facts. no pay increase in years, insurance premiums hikes, illegals being send back time and time again, some even committing violent crimes and zero, zilch happens to them. Jobs leaving the country left and right. Buying power of the dollar diminishing. Falsely reported employment rate and low job creation of any presidency.

And then you have all the Hillary shit.


But hey its over. The people have spoken, A historic landslide. A mandate from the people showing their disgrace towards the political establishment.

Here's a hint: in order to create life, you don't need a seven. If you did you wouldn't be reading this. We exist, therefore by definition life in the universe is possible.

That's simply the fallacy of false equivalence. Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to grant that it might be extraordinarily improbable.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe. There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible. It is simply a faith that many scientists and atheists have that it *must* have happened that way because of evolution. Abiogenesis because evolution is not a theory of origins, it is blind faith.

And as for god? Well, we know for certain that life exists, so it's not unreasonable to assume it might exist elsewhere. But we have zero empirical evidence for god. None, zip, zilch, nada. Does that mean god definitely doesn't exist? No, I can't prove that.

You know that life exists but what you don't know is how or why. To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias; there isn't a logical reason to do so. There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence, there isn't any for abiogenesis. Faith in God is reasonable, faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith.

Is it probable that god exists? No, it would violate everything we know about the universe. That doesn't mean we're not wrong, but you'd think that something as powerful as a literally omnipotent entity would leave some evidence of it's existence.

As Dawkins said when asked what he would say if he died and met god, "why did you go to such trouble to hide yourself?"

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe. I think you're confusing mechanism with agency. Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence, and that people suppress the truth because they love their sin. It's not really about evidence; I know atheists who have had out of body experiences who deny they have a soul.

No. Not everyone thinks like a theist.

I have no idea whether life exists on other planets or not. I can theorise about the probability of it, but that's as far as I'm willing to commit.

As for the nonsense "roll a seven on a six sided die" argument... I really don't know if you're trolling or just genuinely have no understanding of logic, math, probability, statistics, etc.

Here's a hint: in order to create life, you don't need a seven. If you did you wouldn't be reading this. We exist, therefore by definition life in the universe is possible.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to grant that it might be extraordinarily improbable. The video tells us that the latest evidence is that there are around 20,000,000,000 sun size stars and probably about 4,000,000,000 earth like planets. Now, the video gives the odds of life on each one at 0.1% (and then somehow comes up with 1 million instead of 4 million, but I digress).

So we have 4 billion planets that might possibly have earth like life. But let's say that abiogenesis is really, really improbable. In fact, let's say, it's 1 in 4 billion. We've been testing out the various abiogenesis theories for a while now, but I doubt we've conducted anything like 4 billion separate experiments, so it's really no surprise that we haven't observed it.

But it might be even more unlikely. Maybe it's 1 in 400 billion! Seems pretty unlikely, but let's roll with it. There are still 200 billion galaxies out there. Even if only 1% of them are like the milky way that's still 8 billion billion potential life bearing planets. I don't think it's a stretch to say that some of them could have life.

You don't need a seven, but maybe you do need an edge, or a corner!

Do you understand the difference between what I think is probable based on observed facts and "taking something on faith"?

And as for god? Well, we know for certain that life exists, so it's not unreasonable to assume it might exist elsewhere. But we have zero empirical evidence for god. None, zip, zilch, nada. Does that mean god definitely doesn't exist? No, I can't prove that. Is it probable that god exists? No, it would violate everything we know about the universe. That doesn't mean we're not wrong, but you'd think that something as powerful as a literally omnipotent entity would leave some evidence of it's existence.

As Dawkins said when asked what he would say if he died and met god, "why did you go to such trouble to hide yourself?"

Correct --

And there's no empirical evidence of design. Zero. Zilch. None. Nada.

These statements are equally false from a scientific standpoint:

1. God created the universe for humans to live in.
2. My cat created the universe so she could get cat treats.

There's no empirical evidence for either theory.

@chingalera: Yes, we germans have no guns, none, zero, zilch...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

I click the "play" button & zilch happens dude

To be fair. OWS was really a shitty attempt to rally progressives.

I'm sorry, as much as I might agree with their sentiments. Most people cannot relate to a bunch of college aged activists who don't have to work and can afford to camp out in a tent for weeks on end. They also attracted the homeless, who couldn't give a crap one way or the other for politics, they just wanted a place to crash.

I work for state gov't and a local OWS group camped out on the lawn outside our office for months. And yeah, for a few weeks they were active and protesting, but very quickly they got bored and left, except they left their tents and their shit all over the lawn. I remember walking back to my car after going to the gym after work...as I'm walking through the area they were camped out in. Someone was also walking through the area saying "Any occupiers here? anyone here?" she walked through the whole camping area calling out for anyone. no response.

Now as I understand it, the bigger OWS groups were a bit more mindful and respectful of the areas they occupied. But our local group was a complete and utter joke.

OWS just attracted college hipsters living off their parents dime. Say what you will about the Tea Party and their legitimacy (which would be zilch) but the Tea Party was far more successful at attracting the average joe.

Let me know when progressives want to have a rally/protest that actually makes sense and appeals more to the average human being with an 8-5 job and actual real responsibilities.

Two professional bio-medical ethicists/scientists are now offering money -- as much as $11,000 to Michelle Bachmann's campaign, for the medical proof to verify this outrageous claim regarding a vaccination gone bad. (It's my understanding that, if she is unable to "produce her victim," she will need to donate $10,000 to a pro-vaccination group.)

Bachmann's camp has had "no response" to this offer.

I for one, wish her luck! ;-)

>> ^Trancecoach:

there is exactly ZERO percent possibility that an injection of a vaccine can result in or even correlate with the symptoms of mental retardation.
None.
Zilch.
Nada.

there is exactly ZERO percent possibility that an injection of a vaccine can result in or even correlate with the symptoms of mental retardation.

None.
Zilch.
Nada.

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

That's a good point about the deputy dad. I have a feeling that his expanded role might be on the edit-room floor. The pacing was very tight, and I bet they chopped a fair bit out to keep the momentum.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm adding some spoilers to the mix. You've been forewarned.
I agree, excellent homage to the kid ensemble films of the 80s. Each scene with the five or so boys never felt as if they were waiting for their line reading. Each of them were given things to dwell on that differed from the overarching through line of each scene. During important scenes the kids took time to be kids, called each other names, have their own conversation objectives, etc. Those scenes were rich. And I really wish nearly every blockbuster movie was made like that.
The story itself didn't live up to what the film delivered in tone and pacing. If you disagree, then let me ask you a question. What exactly did the deputy father do the latter half of the movie? During the first half, he sets himself up as a major player when he starts sleuthing around the train wreckage, goes against the sheriff's wishes to investigate further and ultimately gets arrested by the Air Force.
And then what did he do to advance the story forward? Virtually nothing. He contributes nearly zilch outside of freeing the little girl's father, and at that point they have a little "them" time to heal their rift. He was set up as a major role that advanced the plot in the beginning, then he was given busywork to finish out the movie while the children picked up where he left off.
I'm not sure yet if I like or dislike the scene where the alien picks up the protagonist kid, does some psychic exchange, then when the boy tells him "bad things happen, but you can live," the alien thinks, "yeah, that's sound advice," then gets the hell out of dodge. I don't know, am I just too cynical now? Maybe I am, because...
The movie was rated PG-13 even though it had cigarette smoking, pot smoking and hard liquor drinking in it. I don't think those things are deserving of an R rating, but the MPAA sure as shit does, but only when it's an industry darling's movie. If you're an indie filmmaker and put a cigarette in your movie you're pretty much guaranteed to get an R. Spielberg and Abrams do it, add some hard drinking, a couple shits, a fuck, guts splattering and a hell of a lot of focus on getting high, and the MPAA bends at the knees.
Also did you notice when the stoned guy passes out cold and the kids leave him, it appeared that they had to ADR in a new line for one of the kids: "Drugs are bad!"
But other than that, the film was great.

I'm adding some spoilers to the mix. You've been forewarned.

I agree, excellent homage to the kid ensemble films of the 80s. Each scene with the five or so boys never felt as if they were waiting for their line reading. Each of them were given things to dwell on that differed from the overarching through line of each scene. During important scenes the kids took time to be kids, called each other names, have their own conversation objectives, etc. Those scenes were rich. And I really wish nearly every blockbuster movie was made like that.

The story itself didn't live up to what the film delivered in tone and pacing. If you disagree, then let me ask you a question. What exactly did the deputy father do the latter half of the movie? During the first half, he sets himself up as a major player when he starts sleuthing around the train wreckage, goes against the sheriff's wishes to investigate further and ultimately gets arrested by the Air Force.

And then what did he do to advance the story forward? Virtually nothing. He contributes nearly zilch outside of freeing the little girl's father, and at that point they have a little "them" time to heal their rift. He was set up as a major role that advanced the plot in the beginning, then he was given busywork to finish out the movie while the children picked up where he left off.

I'm not sure yet if I like or dislike the scene where the alien picks up the protagonist kid, does some psychic exchange, then when the boy tells him "bad things happen, but you can live," the alien thinks, "yeah, that's sound advice," then gets the hell out of dodge. I don't know, am I just too cynical now? Maybe I am, because...

The movie was rated PG-13 even though it had cigarette smoking, pot smoking and hard liquor drinking in it. I don't think those things are deserving of an R rating, but the MPAA sure as shit does, but only when it's [edit] NOT an industry darling's movie. If you're an indie filmmaker and put a cigarette in your movie you're pretty much guaranteed to get an R. Spielberg and Abrams do it, add some hard drinking, a couple shits, a fuck, guts splattering and a hell of a lot of focus on getting high, and the MPAA bends at the knees.

Also did you notice when the stoned guy passes out cold and the kids leave him, it appeared that they had to ADR in a new line for one of the kids: "Drugs are bad!"

But other than that, the film was great.

I disagree. I think you are confusing faith with deduction and inference, which is always incredibly annoying when people talk about how atheists require faith. No, all we require is evidence!

We can infer from available evidence, for instance, that the Big Bang happened, or that dark matter is likely to exist because of other observations and EVIDENCE that it does. The math involved in the physical universe doesn't quite work out without it, despite the fact that we cannot see it. This is, of course, a theory (an actual, scientific type theory), but a theory that makes sense based on the best, current, available EVIDENCE. Similarly, we once inferred that God existed because we did not have the knowledge, nor the tools with which to examine our world with anywhere close to the fidelity that we are able to today, and now we are able to throw out the God hypothesis in almost every discipline of study.

Faith, conversely, requires that you not have evidence and just believe in something without proof, or upon someone's word. Perhaps I did not take enough salt with your statement, but faith is certainly not the evidence of anything, let alone "the unseen". Evidence of the unseen, would still be evidence from which we can deduce a conclusion. If you have evidence, you are no longer faithful, you are simply informed. And as of now, there is no actual evidence outside of anecdotes like this video, the Bible itself, and emotional appeals - which are easily dismissed as not credible - for a deity.

The problem with God is that He's just plugged into areas where we don't know things, and people take it upon faith that He's real, even in areas where there is more than enough real, tangible evidence to contradict a need for a deity. That is why secularists get so irritated at young Earth creationists and the like, where a preponderance of repeatable, testable, falsifiable, and verifiable evidence shows how enormously wrong they are, yet they refuse to believe the evidence itself, because it goes against their faith in what they believe to be true. A person might have all of the intellect and powers of critical thinking in the world, but when someone takes something on faith, they abandon those powers to plug in a simple answer for whatever their personal reasons.

I don't know your story, or how you feel you've rationalized yourself into belief, whether it be through some sort of Pascal's Wager thing, or what, and I certainly don't think you are an "ignorant, bumbling Neanderthal" but to accept any of an infinite number of god possibilities, let alone the specific Abrahamic God requires faith, and an absence of logic in the absence of real evidence.

Sorry, I went on a rant there...>> ^smooman:


while that may be true, they are not mutually exclusive.
faith is the evidence of things unseen (i know thats gonna mean zilch to you so take that with a grain of salt) and i very seriously doubt you could convincingly question the critical thinking skills of persons such as CS Lewis
i dont think atheists (or non christians for that matter) are godless sinners, devoid of any morality, any more than i would hope that you not think me an ignorant, bumbling, neanderthal because im religious
we have different religious views, however this does not make either of us smarter, more critical, or better than the other because of that fact

>> ^smooman:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I mean without faith what do you have?
>> ^smooman:
ps: shinyblurry, science has, quite conclusively, proven that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old....but thats neither here nor there. You at least recognize that it doesnt matter (as do i), as it pertains ones personal relationship with god.
The bible wasnt written to tell me how old the earth is =)



Err... Evidence and critical thinking?

while that may be true, they are not mutually exclusive.
faith is the evidence of things unseen (i know thats gonna mean zilch to you so take that with a grain of salt) and i very seriously doubt you could convincingly question the critical thinking skills of persons such as CS Lewis
i dont think atheists (or non christians for that matter) are godless sinners, devoid of any morality, any more than i would hope that you not think me an ignorant, bumbling, neanderthal because im religious
we have different religious views, however this does not make either of us smarter, more critical, or better than the other because of that fact


My apologies if you thought I was refering to you, my flippant comment was directed at shinyblury and his young earth antics. And I understand faith in principle it just seems that people have faith in whatever is the nearest religion at the time of their spiritual awakening, I mean if you were living a few thousand years ago you may well have had faith in Thor or Zeus and thats all well and good but what if Mighty Ra and his family of gods are the correct thing to have faith in? You would be missing out on Vallhalla...

In reply to this comment by smooman:
>> ^Ti_Moth:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I mean without faith what do you have?
>> ^smooman:
ps: shinyblurry, science has, quite conclusively, proven that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old....but thats neither here nor there. You at least recognize that it doesnt matter (as do i), as it pertains ones personal relationship with god.
The bible wasnt written to tell me how old the earth is =)



Err... Evidence and critical thinking?


while that may be true, they are not mutually exclusive.
faith is the evidence of things unseen (i know thats gonna mean zilch to you so take that with a grain of salt) and i very seriously doubt you could convincingly question the critical thinking skills of persons such as CS Lewis

i dont think atheists (or non christians for that matter) are godless sinners, devoid of any morality, any more than i would hope that you not think me an ignorant, bumbling, neanderthal because im religious

we have different religious views, however this does not make either of us smarter, more critical, or better than the other because of that fact


ok..now i want to have YOUR babies.
pegg is gonna have to go it alone.
right on man.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I mean without faith what do you have?
>> ^smooman:
ps: shinyblurry, science has, quite conclusively, proven that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old....but thats neither here nor there. You at least recognize that it doesnt matter (as do i), as it pertains ones personal relationship with god.
The bible wasnt written to tell me how old the earth is =)



Err... Evidence and critical thinking?


while that may be true, they are not mutually exclusive.
faith is the evidence of things unseen (i know thats gonna mean zilch to you so take that with a grain of salt) and i very seriously doubt you could convincingly question the critical thinking skills of persons such as CS Lewis

i dont think atheists (or non christians for that matter) are godless sinners, devoid of any morality, any more than i would hope that you not think me an ignorant, bumbling, neanderthal because im religious

we have different religious views, however this does not make either of us smarter, more critical, or better than the other because of that fact