>> ^ant:

timeshift
?

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
To #1 with you.

Thank you for the quality dft!!!

In reply to this comment by Hybrid:
*promote

Thank you for the promote Hybrid!!

>> ^kymbos:

Spoiler alert
Am I the only one who is just a tad let down by this season? Breaking Bad is the best TV since Deadwood in my opinion, but previous series have had me constantly on the edge of my seat. This one, I'm just kind of watching play out. I mean, season 4 - come on. That was gripping.
The last two episodes where Walter just becomes the kingpin and makes piles of money just left me a little empty...


I'm impressed that they like to be different. Working for Fring and the eventual high stakes is actually the kind of plot which they could have ended the entire show with the implication that White takes over, completing his ascent (or descent if you like).

If they didn't take chances they would still be stuck in that RV and we might never have had a Fring.

Season [edit] 5 [/edit] was impressive because it was about getting back into the saddle and the writers engineering the plot developments logically from what went before. I've always loved that about the show and the way they still get to focus on these characters and also extract great acting performances. Jonathan Banks was outstanding. And Dean Norris' awkward face when Walter visited his office was priceless.

As for pure gripping tension I think Dead Freight delivered in spades.

I know what you mean by "empty". I suspect this is how Walter feels after all his accomplishments, most of which seem to be about staying below DEA radar. Could they have moved him to a new location and allow him to develop into a Fring-style respected businessman with a dark secret? But then that would be close to repetition.

To the creationist who spent a lot of time writing up his beliefs. Yes, it does take a "leap of faith" to accept current scientific theory.

I appreciate that you can admit it. After investigating the issue, I decided the leap was too great if it was between that and Gods word. I'm sure that seems funny to you, but have you considered the philosophical implications? If you are already committed to naturalistic materialism, like most atheists, of course you are going to believe there *has* to be a materialist explanation, therefore the circumstantial evidence I cited is going to look a lot more persausive than it actually is. You might even admit that it is not proof of anything, but surely it is pointing in the right direction. You can see the issue a lot more objectively if you are not automatically committed to materialist explanations.

However, science never claims to be 100% correct unlike the teachings of most religious fundamentalists. Most time in science is proving current theories wrong, and adapting our scientific model to fit new theories. That is the strength of science. So if you can't accept the current theory, great! Come up with some other PROOF for our existence instead of buying into a cult that has no proof.

What you're doing here is creating a false dichotomy between science and religion. I don't have to choose one or the other. Science has nothing to say on the question on whether God exists. It may conflict with the bible on certain issues, but as I wrote above, I didn't change my mind because of what the bible said as true. I directly said I was willing to modify my understanding of biblical truth if scientific theories conflicted with it. The actual reason I changed my mind was because of a lack of evidence.

As far as whether there is evidence for Christianity, there is quite a bit. Some of the most compelling, I think, is fulfilled prophecy. However, God gives revelation to those who are seeking Him. Only God can reveal Himself to you.

They have assumptions based on a 2000 year old fairy tale, and the feeling "in their heart" that is it true. For me I need more repeatable/accurate proof than that to accept a theory.

I don't expect you to believe in God without any proof beyond personal testimony. As I said, God reveals Himself to those who diligently seek Him.

Sure, in all of recorded history, we look at C12 decay rates and they have been accurate, but instead of coming up with repeatable proof on why C12 isn't accurate, let's just instead assume that they are completely wrong. Looking at just the proof human fossils, the theory of evolution writes a more clear picture to me of the origin of our species than the origin of our species as described in a book. Supposedly, this book is somehow considered divine knowledge by some. Even though, it was written long before we had any understanding of virii, bacteria, or the microbiological world. Doesn't sound very divine or all knowing to me. It was the best explanation that a primitive people had to explain and live in the world around them. Which modern science and culture should be long past.

It's interesting then that the Israelites completely ignored the science of their time and were inspired to invent hand washing and quarantine procedures which, when followed, kept people from getting sick. It was almost as if an all-knowing God knew about germs and gave His people understanding which helped them avoid infection. These things were "discovered" by science thousands of years later. Had people been following Gods rules of sanitation that entire time, millions of lives would have been saved. Far from primitive, they were ahead of their time by millenia.

If it is the bible we're talking about, if you live in today's government, you already accept certain elements as out-dated and irrelevant. Unless you still stone people for adultery, worshipers of other religions, or disobeying their parents. Or if you think that the animal should be stoned in a bestiality case. Or you think that someone looking at a woman menstruating will cause your eyes to bleed. I've hope you've "grown up" from those archaic beliefs. Why is species origin any different?

Have you ever read the bible? Do you understand the differences between the Old and New covenants?

What I normally tell creationists and other anti-science viewpoints, is that if you don't believe in science, don't believe in medical science either. Stay in a church praying to your creator when you get sick or need modern medicine to improve your chances of survival. I'm sure your creator will save you...

As I said, I believe in science. What I don't believe in is the theory of deep time, or evolution by universal common descent.

>> ^Ferazel

Does anyone else think that Bill Nye has the right facial features to play a very convincing Abraham Lincoln?

Anyhow, I know that I am on sacred ground here at videosift, so instead of arguing with you, or the video, I'll just say why I believe in Creationism.

No, it's not because I believe the bible. Unlike many of the Christians that you know, I was not raised in the faith, or any faith, and I converted later in life. My default position was agnosticism, and I was a firm believer in evolution and the old age of the Earth. When I became a follower of Jesus Christ, I automatically didn't ditch those beliefs. I assumed, probably like many atheists turned Christian, that these things were absolutely proven scientifically and there was no room for doubt. Therefore, I further assumed that where the bible differed from the conclusions of science, either the bible was wrong, or it had to be looked at metaphorically.

I was very comfortable with this position, and would have remained there if I hadn't been challenged about the accuracy of this belief. What I found out was that my assumption that science was correct and evolution from universal common descent was absolutely proven was not based on my understanding of the theory, or the evidence behind it, but rather my cultural indoctrination into it.

If you grew up in a secular home like I did, then you might know what I am talking about. It's what they teach you in school, first of all. All of the textbooks you read about science support this theory, and so do your teachers. It's all over the culture as well. It's in the books that you read, the movies that you watch, and the music that you listen to. It's in conversations, it's in euphamisms, basically, it's everywhere. It's always presented to you as a proven fact and you have no reason to ever question it. I had no idea, really, that so many people (40 percent of our population) do question it.

In any case, I started investigating it. I studied the history of how this theory came to be accepted as truth, the evidence that supports it, and how it interrelates with many different branches of science. What I was shocked to find, and I do mean shocked, was that the absolute proof of the theory that every authority in my life who taught on these things told me was there, wasn't there. What I found was that, when it came to the evidence, sooner or later you came upon a giant assumption (read: leap of faith). What I found was that the case for evolution was not resting on a bedrock of proof, but rather a mountain of circumstantial evidence.

The only logical conclusion at this point was that if I was going to continue to believe in evolution, I would have to take it on faith. Instead of doing that, I decided to put my faith in the bible instead. So I changed my mind because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

Now, I said I am not going to argue with Bill Nye, but I will address a point that he brought up. Specifically, deep time. Deep time is the fundamental assumption which much of modern science is built upon, but what is the proof for deep time?

Well, the first proof that is usually brought up is radiometric dating. When someone hears "radiometric dating" they associate the very mention as conclusive proof, as if the rock being dated had a timestamp on it, and radiometric dating just reads it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Radiometric dating has a few assumptions built into it:

1. Constant decay rate
2. Ratio of daughter to natural
3. Beginning conditions known
4. No leaching or addition of parent
5. No leaching or addition of daughter
6. All assumptions valid for billions of years

If all of those assumptions are valid, the date can be trusted. The problem is that there is no way to determine whether all of those assumptions are true or not. And that is, if there were just one date. The experiment actually gives a range of dates, which is then further interpreted by what is called "field relationships" between the rocks. There are many technical problems with this, but I won't get into them here. There is also the problem that different dating methods give different results for the same rock, and that when we measure things we know the age of, we get incorrect dates. If we get incorrect dates for things we know the age of, why should we trust the dates it gives for things we don't?

So, it's not so cut and dry. Evolution should be questioned; after all, that's how new theories are made. If you want to teach children that evolution shouldn't be questioned, then you are teaching them something antithetical to science. What it comes down to is what is true. You can argue creationism vs evolutionism all day long. You can know it's true simply from the bible. What proves the bible to me is that when I gave my life to Jesus Christ, He sent me the Holy Spirit to dwell within me, and He supernaturally changed my life and made me a new person. The bible says this is exactly what will happen, and it did happen. It proves that what Jesus said is true, which validates the Old and New Testament, since Jesus personally validated all of the major facts of the Old Testament. Intellectually, I can pick these theories apart, but in the end, God proves Himself. It is nothing you have to speculate about because God will personally demonstrate it to you.

Congratulations! Your video, Curiosity Rover Mars Descent - Hi-res video released Aug 19, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 1 Badge!

>> ^ReverendTed:

>> ^Edgeman2112:
1:35 : Vaginal separation?
Backshell separation. The landing was exciting, but not that exciting.

I dunno... I had to change my trousers.

>> ^Edgeman2112:
1:35 : Vaginal separation?
Backshell separation. The landing was exciting, but not that exciting.

Your video, Curiosity Rover Mars Descent - Hi-res video released Aug 19, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^saber2x:
There was a initial plan to have 3d cameras by James Cameron, but that was stopped due to a lack of time to test the cameras. http://www.space.com/11241-nasa-mars-rover-3d-camera-james-cameron.html
>> ^steroidg:
>> ^Deano:
C'mon NASA, 1080p, full screen!

1080p? Pffft, why stop there, let's get a IMAX 3D camera on board . Mars landing on giant screen ftw!!!



At least there are still some 3D images coming our way from NASA!

There was a initial plan to have 3d cameras by James Cameron, but that was stopped due to a lack of time to test the cameras. http://www.space.com/11241-nasa-mars-rover-3d-camera-james-cameron.html

>> ^steroidg:

>> ^Deano:
C'mon NASA, 1080p, full screen!

1080p? Pffft, why stop there, let's get a IMAX 3D camera on board . Mars landing on giant screen ftw!!!

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^Confucius:
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^Deano:
C'mon NASA, 1080p, full screen!

A perfect landing using radically new technology, and you are complaining about the resolution!? Jeez, no pleasing some people...

NASA/Space/Mars program is intensely connected to public opinion. Better images, higher resolution etc.... more support more money. NASA should drop some scientific equipment and get some higher resolution images (that sir is what we call looking at the long-term game). Why do you think they release these images?

Oh, ok, lets drop the science to allow higher resolution. Stfu you idiot.


Oh, ok, come out from beneath the bridge and show us who you really are... OMG! It's Mr obvious troll! And I just fed him! NOOOOOOO!

>> ^Deano:

C'mon NASA, 1080p, full screen!


1080p? Pffft, why stop there, let's get a IMAX 3D camera on board . Mars landing on giant screen ftw!!!