I would have actually voted for this video if not for the atheist salespitch strewn throughout, or the sad debate with the catholic priest at the end. What he is saying is essentially correct, and in fact, he uses many of the same arguments that I use when talking to liberal Christians. This isn't the whole story, though.

First, a Christian shouldn't reject evolution. Micro-evolution, or changes below the species level, is not only a proven fact, but it also explains how the world was repopulated after the flood. There is no conflict in believing this occurs. The contentious issue is macro evolution, or the theory of common descent. If you believe all life has a common ancestor, then you cannot believe in a literal Adam and Eve. At least, you would think that, but I've heard some Christians say things like, God used evolution to bring about all of the animals, but humans He specially created in the garden. This is obviously a compromise but some people don't see that as being a big deal.

In any case, as for myself, I came into Christianity with a belief in macro evolution, and I saw no reason to doubt it was true. Like everyone here, I had been indoctrinated into that belief from a young age and I assumed it was true because it was taught as absolute fact. Because I was still young in the faith, I didn't see the logical inconsistancy in believing in macro evolution and Christianity. However, what spurred me to change my mind was not finding that there was an inconsistancy (i didnt become aware of that until later), it was simply investigating what the evidence for macro evolution actually was. I was profoundly shocked to find that it was based on nothing more than weak, circumstantial evidence, and like abiogenesis, it dwelled solely in the realm of metaphysics. It took me awhile to change my mind about it; my indoctrination was heavy, mostly because it is so ingrained in our culture. You see it in books, movies, tv shows, nature shows, newspapers, always talking about it as if it were absolutely 100 percent proven. The culture speaks with one voice about it, and that voice says it is historical fact. Yet what I found is that it is not proven, it is just assumed to be true, and then the evidence is interpreted through that lens to support the preconceived notions, which is the exact opposite of scientific reasoning.

I don't think Christians should reject macro evolution just because the bible speaks of a literal Adam and Eve. I think they should also reject it because it is not supported by the facts. I think they should understand what the data is for theory and how scientists arrived at their conclusions. I think they should be as well informed about it as possible. If the evidence were solid for macro evolution having occured, I would still believe it. This might change my ideas about what the bible says, but my faith isn't based exclusively on interpretation of the bible; ultimately, it is based on my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

The main premise of this video is really to shake the faith of liberal Christians, and also to say that those who are logically consistant regarding the bible are rejecting macro evolution despite the evidence. I can honestly say I rejected it because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

I read Cosmos at the age of four. Carl Sagan was always a favorite of mine, but I don't agree with his views on religion (of course he is mostly talking about Christianity). So, while I maintain my fondness for his invoking of the wonder of creation, I can't say I agree with anything he said in this video. It's really just one straw man or gross misrepresentation after another..

He asks, why is man similar to God? Yet, it is written that God created man in His image.

He said the size of the Universe rules out our having any particular significance. That just doesn't follow. God is omnipresent, and can give equal time and significance to any part of His creation. No matter how small we are in comparison to the rest of the Universe, the Universe is small compared to God. He can give significance to any part of His creation, so how would we know what He considers significant?

He says religion was an attempt to explain origins, but now we know better..

Yet, science doesn't know better. On origins, science knows exactly zip. In fact, most of the evidence science has found in the last century points towards a Creator and not away from one.

He says religion makes mistakes; if he is talking about scripture, I don't agree, but in any case science is not omnipotent, and it makes mistakes all the time. On the objectivity of science, I like this quote:

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it

He said religions contradict each other, and so they should, since only one could possibly be correct.

He said there is nothing to say that the Universe was made for us, yet the evidence shows that the universe is fine tuned for life

He said life has no purpose, which shows the nihilism inherent in the naturalistic materialist worldview. Carl Sagan would probably agree with this statement by Richard Dawkins:

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

He said there is no proof of origins, which I agree with, if we're talking about the story that scientists tell us about abiogenesis and evolution from common descent

He said there could be more advanced beings, so why not God?

He said we need to get over not being important and embrace being tiny. Yet, this desire to be tiny and unimportant is actually desire for total autonomy, apart from God. It is a desire to take God off His throne and take His place on it. That's not a tiny idea, that is sinful mans greatest desire.

He said religion arose because of fear, yet Christianity arose because of Jesus Christ

He also turns around the story in the garden, saying man was kept ignorant, starving for knowledge. What he failed to understand was that God wanted to teach us His way. He knew the difference between good and evil; all we needed to do is follow His instructions and we could have spared ourselves all of this suffering and death. Yet, He gave us a choice, because He didn't want robots. Why do you think He put the tree there in the first place? People reason it as if it was just incidentally there and we broke free of God..yet, God deliberately put it there, to give us a choice, and we abused that choice.

He wants to believe order comes out of chaos, but there is no such thing as chaos. There always must be an overriding order for anything to arise at all. Science cannot explain the uniformity of the nature; it is actually *the* fundamental assumption of science, that science could even be done at all. You can't say that the Universe will operate the same way even 10 seconds from now. Another case of sitting in Gods lap to slap His face.

He said we determine the significance of the planet and ourselves..

Again, this is man wanting to put himself in Gods shoes. Man is not wise, has never been wise, and would utterly destroy Himself if not for God maintaining order on this planet. The heart of man is filled with violence and depravity. God is the only good in this world, and all good things come from Him.

(from YouTube)

Movies in order of appearance:

Halloween
Freddy VS. Jason
Resident Evil
The Amityville Horror
Night of the Demons
Christine
Shocker
From Dusk Till Dawn
Planet Terror
Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood
The Thing
Alice Sweet Alice
Don't Look Now
The Town That Dreaded Sundown
Madman
The Shining
The Exorcist
Poltergeist
Child's Play
28 Days Later
Psycho
Cemetery Man
Salem's Lot
Hellraiser II: Hellbound
Bram Stoker's Dracula
Jacob's Ladder
Suspiria
Slither
Trick R Treat
Re-Animator
Killer Klowns From Outer Space
Creepshow
American Psycho
Leprechaun
The Dark Half
The Hitcher
The Final Destination
Zombi 2
Audition
The Changeling
The Omen
Drag Me To Hell
The Crazies
The Ring
Jaws
The Descent
When a Stranger Calls
Dawn of the Dead
The Devil's Rejects
The Exorcist
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Near Dark
Motel Hell
Carrie
Spontaneous Combustion
An American Werewolf in London
The Blair Witch Project
[REC]
Paranormal Activity
Day of the Dead
Cube Zero
Ichi the Killer
Dead Snow
The Machine Girl
Wrong Turn 2
Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead
Black Sheep
Saw III
Freddy VS. Jason
Hatchet II
The Descent
Braindead (Dead Alive)
Day of the Dead
Troll 2
Shaun of the Dead
Phantasm
Profondo Rosso (Deep Red)
Return of the Living Dead
Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn
C.H.U.D.
Baby Blood
Slugs
Tales From the Crypt: Demon Knight
Bride of Chucky
976-EVIL
Tremors
The Devil's Backbone
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare
A Tale of Two Sisters
Jeepers Creepers II
Basket Case
Alien
Cujo
Rosemary's Baby
Interview with the Vampire
Let the Right One In
Halloween III: Season of the Witch
Scream
Chakushin Ari (One Missed Call)
Ju-On (The Grudge)
House on Haunted Hill
Hostel
Candyman
Insidious
The Orphanage
Black Christmas
Pet Semetary
Fright Night
The Exorcist
Mother's Day
Scanners
The Shining
The Evil Dead
The Exorcism of Emily Rose
Chopping Mall
Braindead (Dead Alive)

>> ^messenger:
So, how is you believing that you have a superior intellect to someone who believes in God not pride?

Read it again. Nobody claimed to have a superior intellect to anyone else. The contrast is between using our intellect and not using it. As Galileo famously put it, "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use." Now, he was talking from the perspective of a person of faith who simply didn't believe the bible or church teachings anymore but certainly did still believe in God. We are speaking as people with sense, reason and intellect who don't see sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that God might reasonably exist.

It's the entire contention that someone who believes in God is not using their sense, reason and intellect that is prideful. Did you know that 40 percent of biologists, physicists and mathematicians believe in a personal God? Some extremely intelligent people believe in a Creator, and they can back up their beliefs with logical evidence. You see theists through a grossly distorted lens created by your own prejudice, and it blinds you. Galileo, by the way, did believe the bible; what he didn't buy is the catholic interpretation of it, and rightly so.

>> ^messenger:
Since there is no empirical evidence for or against Gods existence, how do you calculate how likely or unlikely His existence is?

The lack of evidence for existence is a non-concrete kind of evidence for the lack of existence. So the overwhelming lack of evidence for God is a bloody strong case. Everywhere we look in nature, we continue not to find God.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Although I think there is evidence, such as fine tuning and information in DNA. In any case, do you honestly believe you can point an instrument at God and say "there he is!". Is this idea not fundamentally ridiculous? I think what youre confusing is mechanism with agency. You think because you describe a mechanism, how something works in a mechanical sense, somehow it rules out an Agent. God says He upholds the entire Universe; that He is the one that keeps the atoms from flying apart. How does mechanism rule out Gods agency?

Not only that, but if God created the Universe, do you realize that the entire Universe is evidence of Gods existence? The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

What about the laws of logic? Where do they come from? If they're only in our brains, subject to constant flux, then what is rationality? It isn't anything you can trust if what you believe is true. Therefore all of your arguments fall apart. You have nothing in your worldview that can explain it, yet I can explain it. I know there is an omnipotent God who made us in His image, and we are rational beings because He is a rational being.

>> ^messenger:
Please, stop talking about science. You really do not understand it. You sound like a religious sceptic spouting crap about the bible. Really, what you say about science is just non-verified faither talking points. All science is based only on observation and drawing generalized inferences from that. "Theories" are just that. The strength of a scientific theory is roughly [how well it predicts other things] ÷ [how many things you have to just accept]. The belief in a particular atomic structure for oxygen has many predictions, which are testable and have largely been shown reliably true. So the atomic structure of an oxygen atom is a generally accepted theory, even though we will never be able to sense it directly. It's scientific. On those same grounds, the theory of evolution is also a strong theory in science. It has very few conjectures (three simple ones, I believe I heard Dawkins once say), it generates predictions, the predictions are testable, and they affirm the theory. Saying that evolution is untestable is as ridiculous as saying we haven't investigated every oxygen atom, so the model of the atom is untestable, and therefore unscientific.

If you understood it better than I do then you would know what macro evolution is. The scientific method uses empirical evidence, which comes from empirical experimentation or observation. There is no experiment to prove macro evolution, nor can it be empirically observed. It is simply an unjustified extrapolation from micro evolution (which is proven beyond a reasonable doubt), and based on nothing but inferences from *circumstantial* evidence and not evidence based on empirical observation.

Many people have this conception that the theory of common descent is as certain and proven as 2 + 2 = 4, or as Sepacore put it:

"once claimed to be a book of literal truth, becomes more and more metaphorical as science stomps its way all over the human races ignorance of the universe reaching greater level's of understandings that are testable through mathematical predictions"

That is certainly how it is taught in schools, as absolute fact, and that's why I believed it too. It's when you stop looking at their conclusions and see the actual data they base them on that you will get the shock of your life. Yes, you're right, the theory makes a few predictions, all of which have turned out to be wrong..such as this:

The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin

Darwin predicted that for his theory to be true, there must be innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. What have we found?:


"Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, .., prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's prediction. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, pg 45-46.

What we find is that creatures appear in stasis, and enter and leave the fossil record abruptly with no changes.

Another prediction is a start from simple to complex, with an increase of diversity of the phyla over a long period of time.

"Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably longer than the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and during these vast, yet quite unknown periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1st edition, pg 307.

What we find is that all of the phyla we have today all abruptly appeared in the "cambrian explosion"

"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs ... "
S. Gould, The Panda's Thumb, pg 238, 239.

This is just the tip of the iceberg for how poor a theory macroevolution actually is, but you won't have a shortage of true believers in it, even though they don't even understand what evidence it is based on. I do know something about science, and although I am a layman, I am perfectly capable of understanding of what makes a sound theory, and what doesn't. I would believe in macroevolution if the evidence supported it. Not only does it not support it, but it actually argues against it. It is shocking to someone who has been indoctrinated (like I was), but if you want to talk about fairy stories, macroevolution is a whale of a tale.

When I was in film school, a friend of mine made a very similar film of tracking a paper airplane's descent from a high rise building (without the avian intervention).

A very cool film.

Megavalanche is "some 2000 metres down and 30 km along" and "top competitors making the 2000m descent in less than an hour". Very impressive...

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

My point still holds that to hold any descent amount of energy that they are producing when no one is using power requires a HUGE number of these things. This tech isn't really new, they have been using it for years, this is just a new formulation, tech has been around since the 60s. The problem is the same problem now as then, chemical energy density just isn't that great. If you are trying to use it as some type of regulator, fine then, but that isn't what he is talking about. He is talking about storing up volumes of energy that wind and solar make when people don't want it, then inject that to the grid when it needs it. You need this because renewables are unpredictable. To store any real volume of energy worth caring about, you need 10s of thousands of these. For comparison, a single 1gigawatt power station (a pretty standard size in the industry of power generation) generates enough energy for hundreds of thousands of people, even in the shade.
I'm not trying to be a negative nancy, I like advances as much as the next guy, I just don't like all this investment in renewables over real grid solutions. The energy density of wind and solar makes them impractical solutions for primary load generation, but that is all we hear about in today's energy topics. It is like talking about saving pennies when your trillion in debt. It bugs me, so perhaps I am harping to much on this
>> ^curiousity:
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I don't think this is even close to grid level storage, at all. For instance, in Austin this year, between 4 and 5 p.m we consumed 66,867 megawatts. For those who are counting, that is over 33k of these things. Lets talk about storing them. Each container would be 40x8x8 feet; or 2,560 cubic feet. Lets just say we need 1 hours worthish of power, so 33k of them. That is 84 million cubic feet! For reference, the Empire State building is 37 million cubic feet. So for one hour of power here in Austin, we would need about 3 Empire state buildings of liquid metal batteries, unless my math is wrong (someone check me!) If my math is right, this isn't even close to a grid level storage ability. Your going to need density on the order of 1000 better to even be reasonably sized at 84k cubic feet (about the size of a large factory, or concert hall).
The only reason to try and investigate battery grid backup is to address the issue of wind and solar being so energy inefficient, and volatile. It is a better solution to just have them generate secondary power and let new fission based technologies take hold; best of both worlds. Then again, I have a personal bias

I thought that he had clearly made the point that this investigation into grid battery technology was for the purpose of making those intermittent renewable resources reliable to the point that they could more easily attach to the grid. You are arguing that this isn't suitable for a purpose that he isn't designing it for.



Ahh... well thank you for clearing up what he really meant beyond what he said. I guess I only had to go off of what he said.

My point still holds that to hold any descent amount of energy that they are producing when no one is using power requires a HUGE number of these things. This tech isn't really new, they have been using it for years, this is just a new formulation, tech has been around since the 60s. The problem is the same problem now as then, chemical energy density just isn't that great. If you are trying to use it as some type of regulator, fine then, but that isn't what he is talking about. He is talking about storing up volumes of energy that wind and solar make when people don't want it, then inject that to the grid when it needs it. You need this because renewables are unpredictable. To store any real volume of energy worth caring about, you need 10s of thousands of these. For comparison, a single 1gigawatt power station (a pretty standard size in the industry of power generation) generates enough energy for hundreds of thousands of people, even in the shade.

I'm not trying to be a negative nancy, I like advances as much as the next guy, I just don't like all this investment in renewables over real grid solutions. The energy density of wind and solar makes them impractical solutions for primary load generation, but that is all we hear about in today's energy topics. It is like talking about saving pennies when your trillion in debt. It bugs me, so perhaps I am harping to much on this
>> ^curiousity:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I don't think this is even close to grid level storage, at all. For instance, in Austin this year, between 4 and 5 p.m we consumed 66,867 megawatts. For those who are counting, that is over 33k of these things. Lets talk about storing them. Each container would be 40x8x8 feet; or 2,560 cubic feet. Lets just say we need 1 hours worthish of power, so 33k of them. That is 84 million cubic feet! For reference, the Empire State building is 37 million cubic feet. So for one hour of power here in Austin, we would need about 3 Empire state buildings of liquid metal batteries, unless my math is wrong (someone check me!) If my math is right, this isn't even close to a grid level storage ability. Your going to need density on the order of 1000 better to even be reasonably sized at 84k cubic feet (about the size of a large factory, or concert hall).
The only reason to try and investigate battery grid backup is to address the issue of wind and solar being so energy inefficient, and volatile. It is a better solution to just have them generate secondary power and let new fission based technologies take hold; best of both worlds. Then again, I have a personal bias

I thought that he had clearly made the point that this investigation into grid battery technology was for the purpose of making those intermittent renewable resources reliable to the point that they could more easily attach to the grid. You are arguing that this isn't suitable for a purpose that he isn't designing it for.

Funny, cause I used to think Tom Green was going to be the leading cause of humanities descent into the depths of depravity.

In reply to this comment by ant:
*asia


Curious: why'd you stick this in Asia? Takei may be of Japanese descent, but he's no more an "Asian" than I'm a "German". The man was born and raised in Los Angeles. Hell, I don't think he even speaks Japanese. My thought is that until we get a *white channel (hopefully never, despite QM's efforts) the Asia channel ought to be reserved for, you know... Asian things.

Your thoughts? Don't just give me your usual "I am just an Ant" speil.

Music sounds like the ambient sound in Amnesia: Dark Descent.

Quick! Find the nearest closet! HIDE!

Pat Morita is of Asian descent, but he's clearly american, and all of these stories take place in the states. So, I will remove the Asian tag.

It's not toodifficult to be upside down like that with a dry suit. When you're first learning to dive with a dry suit it's actually a bit difficult to master NOT doing that. Any excess air within the suit will tend to bubble up to the highest point of the suit, so if you just tilt a little, the air will go to your feet, and turn you vertical.

That would USUALLY be fairly bad technique unless you were intentially trying to keep your fins away from the bottom while you were looking at something or gathering something, etc. It's more difficult to control your buoyancy and assecnt/descent rate, but since they're just bumping against the ice, that's a non-factor.

All that said, it's probably pretty difficult to make it LOOK normal while upside down performing all those actions.

I am not going to tell Asian Americans how to be offended by any word. And since in the states, people can't tell nationalities apart, every person of east asian descent gets called a chink. I think there is a world of difference between a tongue-in-cheek use of the word chink by the people it is targeted at, and someone using it in a hateful or hostile way towards asians.

edit: I have added a warning and NSFW.

@Grimm

I apologize for my descent into ad hom land.