Being attacked by a giant rodent is one my nightmares. Those horrible, flat teeth!

>> ^shinyblurry:
Flim flam flooey, I'm irrational.

Look, I'm going to back slowly away from this conversation since it has become clear to me that you are not rational. You reject the concept of knowledge outright but then demand proofs, you throw out ridiculous terms like "irreducible complexity" (let me guess: eyes? flagellum?), and you don't hold yourself to the same standards of proof as you do your philosophical opponents. I'm sorry you didn't get to spring whatever rhetorical trap you had planned with the whole "if Jesus is god" thing, but I answered that question twice.

Anyway, have a good life, and for both our sakes I hope your worldview is not correct.

>> ^shinyblurry:

There is no reason to believe there is a teapot floating in space, but there is reason to believe that the Universe was created by a supreme being. Could there be one in space unknown to all? Sure, and I wouldn't unequivicably state that there are not. Perhaps some astronauts were having a tea party in outer space one day and the teapot floated off. If I did unequivicably state there were none, I would have a burden of proof, and that is why Christopher had to explain himself.

So I take this to mean that you are truly agnostic about all non-Christian gods. You will refuse to state unequivocally that there is a council of 5 supreme beings who created the universe.

>> ^shinyblurry:
It is simply to try to trivialize the question to equate the idea of God, which can explain everything from the fine tuning of the physical laws, the appearance of design in biological systems, and the information in DNA, to teapots, unicorns, and fairies, which explain absolutely nothing.

You do have me on the trivializing part, because god and a teapot in space mean about the same to me since there is the same amount of evidence for both. There is no appearance of design in biological systems (we made great leaps in understanding biology in the last 100 years or so), and the "fine-tuning" of physical laws are easily explained without a higher being, and so it is not necessary. (Any universe without those properties would make life impossible and so we would never know it existed, we do not know how many universes exist, have existed, or can exist, etc. If you want to maintain a god of the gaps you are welcome to, but the natural solutions to every mystery ever make the future of such a worldview tenuous at best.)

The presence of a supernatural being is, by definition, unfalsifiable. The concept of a supernatural being is literally meaningless, since you can say anything about it and not be proven wrong (or right). It cannot be measured


>> ^shinyblurry:
So, you're an agnostic? I was once agnostic and did not see any evidence for God or Spirit, although I did not rule out His existence either. Let me ask you this..if Jesus is God, would you turn your life over to Him and follow Him?

I am an atheist, but I am not blind to evidence and so my position is capable of change.

>> ^shinyblurry:

A flying teapot explains exactly nothing; it has no explanatory power. The idea of God does. Between evolution and special creation you have exausted all the possibilities. You have faith in a self-creating universe, I have faith that it was designed by an all powerful being. I see evidence of design, and since it is mathematically impossible it happened by chance, God is a far more plausible hypothesis according to the evidence

The "explanatory power" of a teapot is irrelevant to my question. Do you believe in it or not? If not, why not? You are dodging the question, and it is painfully obvious why. You find yourself in the same position that Mr. Hitchens did, which is to prove a negative.

I don't have faith in a self-creating universe, I just don't see evidence for an all powerful being. As soon as evidence for one appears, my views will change. This is not faith. It is, in fact, the opposite of faith.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, Hitchens tried to cloak himself in the vast and endless void of unbelief, yet Lane quickly cornered him and he was forced to admit that he did not in fact believe God exists, which is the assertion of atheism, regardless of how you try to game the definition. Did you miss that part? Of course he didn't have any arguments for this assertion. I think Hitchens fell far short of even the most objective measure of success here.

Do you believe there is a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Jupiter and Neptune? Please present your evidence for or against. Any refusal to present evidence will be taken as proof that you failed the debate.

He's not trying to get the name of the person he's speaking to, he's trying to get the name of someone who has died. So the fact that he guessed the woman's name is a failure, since it's supposed to be about the spirits of the dead.

He doesn't need questionnaires filled out ahead of time. Cold callers pick common names and start spouting close variations, e.g. Mary, Margaret, etc. At one point he goes from saying he's getting "Cathy" to getting that their Catholic. He just spouts stuff until the audience confirms something, then he goes from there.

When watching someone like this, keep track of the failures. People who fall for this crap always forget any failures and over-emphasize the successes.

>> ^Mcboinkens:

>> ^ridesallyridenc:
>> ^Mcboinkens:
How did he guess specific names though? Is he given a list?

I know a paul, a mary, a cathy, and a two terrys. They're pretty common names...

But he didn't just say, "is anyone here named paul, mary, cathy, or terry?" He picks specific people and tells them their name. I am assuming what BoneyD said is right, where there is some sort of seatID and questionnaire match.

Directly manipulating the system is not the only way to learn about it, though. As computing power increases, so does our ability to simulate large systems. Also, I would like to see a more balanced view of the output of this proposition. Preventing hurricanes is one possible outcome. What are the others?

This was surprisingly hilarious.

Excellent, the Tea Party finally appears to be imploding.

Anyone else thirsty?

The first segment of this video (where Beck is in front the chalkboard with pictures of some founding fathers and Obama and company) is dishonestly edited to make it seem like Beck is suggesting using violence. If you watch the segment fully, he is saying that armed revolt is something to be avoided.

I am not a fan of Beck in the least, but it's not cool to twist people's words and selectively edit for a personal agenda.

>> ^westy:

Regardless of u stance on animal crulty its ironic that the people r trying to get the dogs to fight and the dogs just want to sniff eachothers bums and hump.
if annything it gose in the face of dog fighting.
allso this video in no way indorses dog fighting.

It's not ironic that the dogs have to be taught to fight each other, that's just the way it works. These animals would not otherwise attack each other so viciously, as the likelihood of getting themselves injured or killed is too high. That's why animals develop various non-violent methods of resolving disputes (baring teeth, growling, raising hackles, etc.).

The main reason that this video is not amusing in the least is that the flip side of this coin is gruesome, inhumane and abhorrent. If these animals cannot be taught to fight viciously until one of them is dead or they are physically separated by their handlers, they will be killed. A fighting dog that doesn't fight isn't worth shit to a person who fights dogs. So while someone felt it would be fun to put clever musical touches on this particular video, I would challenge them to do the same to the video of these dogs being drowned, electrocuted, strangled, shot, hacked with a machete or all of the above.

This video absolutely endorses dog fighting, as it tries frame this phase of a fighting dog's life as amusing or cute, when in fact it is anything but. If these dogs do not "overcome" their natural urges to inspect each other and integrate in a peaceful social hierarchy, they will be killed by their handlers in cold blood.

The humor that is being attempted by the video's creator is not lost on me, but I cannot ignore the greater context of dog fighting simply because of some silly music.

I am a regular lurker here on VideoSift, and this is the first time I cursed the fact that I am not a bronze star user, as this is the first video I felt like down-voting.

>> ^TheSofaKing:
I'm sorry, did I miss the part where the coroner listed "asphyxiation" as a cause of death? No because he was not applying enough force to prevent breathing.


You must have missed the part from the report that doesn't match up with what you wanted to say:

"Preliminary results from the Livingston Parish coroner show Stogner died from severe coronary artery disease, an enlarged heart, and a fracture of the hyoid bone in his neck. Dr. Ron Coe says the fracture may be due to force being applied to that area."

They apparently had to struggle to fill 30 whole seconds, because two of the clips are of people falling down. Not exactly what I would call violent acts.

>> ^asynchronice:
Is skateboarding seriously illegal anywhere in San Francisco ? If so, that's ridiculous.


From the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors' web site [emphasis mine]:

a) Prohibits skateboarding on any city street at any time, on any sidewalk in any business district at any time, and on any non-business district sidewalk commencing 30 minutes after sunset and ending 30 minutes before sunrise (Traffic Code, Section 100)

b) Prohibits skateboarding "in or about any public transit station (including an outdoor high-level boarding platform), streetcar, cable car, motor coach, trolley coach or other public transit vehicle, including, but not limited to, those stations or vehicles operated by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District" (Traffic Code, Section 128)

c) Prohibits skateboarding in Yerba Buena Gardens, the Japanese Tea Garden, the Arboretum, Conservatory Valley, where it is posted as prohibited, and in South Beach Park or Rincon Park unless otherwise permitted (Park Code Sections 3.05 and 11.02 and Port Code Sections 2.4 and 7.2).

d) Requires skateboarders at skating facilities owned or operated by the City and County to wear helmets, kneepads, and elbow pads (Park Code Section 4.17).