Thanks mate.
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*promote

I'm glad I always check before promoting Assuming one of us can find a fix, I expect to get back to it within the next 10 days or so.
In reply to this comment by Norsuelefantti:
Thanks for the heads up :
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*dead account terminated

Thanks for the heads up
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*dead account terminated

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.

He is surely Muhammad incarnate... The coins leave no room for doubt.

@schmawy: I didn't hear any complaining when the strawberry jelly was on your muzzle, you kinky bastard. Now behave yourself, I've got a new rifle to try out, kitty cat...

@blankfist: Gay jokes from blankfist...what a surprise! I hope your movies are more original than your comments, or you'll be back to directing gay midget porn soon enough.

@MycroftHolmez: I'm sure that would be somewhat funny if I had seen some geeky movie. Instead it's uninspired and boring. Like you, mycroft.

@mas8705: the channel envy is plain to see. Rocknroll is for men, videogames are for boys...and fat, ugly mid-30s losers who still live with their mom...looking your way, mas.

@kulpims: your name suddenly came up on the list of potential sacrifices.

@firefly: we Europeans aren't squeemish when it comes to phallic land masses...you damn prude.

@Zifnab: you know all that talk of me being Mr. Peanut was just a trick to get you to suck my salty nuts? Worked perfectly. His dark helmet bobbing forwards and backwards...memories.

@gorgonheap: you succesfully killed your own joke, not to mention what little respect you might still have had here, with that last comment. How can I kill something that is already dead?

@laura: look who the stalker is now...I want you to tear up that restraining order, laura!

@calvados: you did that with your ex-"girlfriend" as well. I've seen the pictures...no room for doubt.

@gwiz665: Give me a challenge! This is a guy who sits in front of his computer all day, drinking cola and jerking off at regular intervals. He probably wears glasses too. His idea of wit is quoting Futurama. Despite being heterosexual, he hangs out in gay bars because no woman will speak to him. His mother makes up stuff about him so her friends won't think Lil' Nicky is as pathetic as he is. All in all, we're all richer people for not knowing this guy in person.

@nibiyabi: My hairy back and busted knuckles are powerful aphrodisiacs. Just ask your grandma.

@thinker247: I was looking forward to ripping you a new one, but then you end up praising my name. Bullet dodged for now...

@Crosswords: I'll make an exception and eat ice cream from your decapitated skull. THEN I'll get romantic with said skull. That knife-wielding raccoon won't be able to help you then.

@alien_concept: I think I prefer you keep sending me nude pictures of yourself instead of stuff like this. I know you crave my attention, but like I told you after those inappropriate phone calls you made: "I don't dig bald chicks or wooden legs". And I know you've tried to better yourself, but honestly; 3 teeth, no matter how white, are still 29 too few. Keep looking, Rae, I'm sure there are some guys in the damaged goods department that might go for you.

@NordlichReiter: ...and I'd do it again. And again. Then I probably wouldn't care anymore.

@my15minutes: your 15 minutes were up 5 minutes after you were born, you uninteresting spellchecker you!

@rougy: who are you, why should I care...and why are you wearing my dirty boxers as a hat?

@dotdude: I hear roast of dotdude is a Creole delicacy...

>>^millos
Maybe she is right maybe she is not, the fact is there is no consensus yet as to the link of hurricanes to global warming.

I absolutely agree that there's no consensus yet, but the way that she says it leaves no room for doubt.

I don't want to come across as a dyed-in-the-wool global warming denier but it gets my goat the way the media (at least in the UK) have decided that the argument is over.

>> ^Kreegath:
I wouldn't say that having a belief in a religion constitutes being a religious nut, because to me there's nothing wrong with having convictions about things that are inherently unknowable.


your statement is paradoxical in itself - if these "things" are inherently unknowable, how can you believe in them with such (or any reasonable degree of) conviction? I understand the meanings of the words "belief" and "conviction" as something that leave little or no room for doubt or interpretation. or maybe my english is worse than i thought...

"Oh - it's all clear now - secularism is the cure to all ills."

Did you notice how I only emphasized one damn sentence in my post, the one that says that there does not have to be a connection between those stats and the actual morals of secularism.

Talk about not listening.

My whole point was to show that there is no clear indications that religion makes you more moral there is also No clear indication that secularism/atheism makes you more moral

I said this because you brought up Yunus' religious conviction as the "source for good" which is what I was addressing.

"Communisim was a secular ideology. In the last two centuries vastly more people have died as a result of intolerant secular ideologies than religion."

Russia wasnt secular in the same sense say, scandinavia today is secular. people in scandinavia today are secular on their own conditions, not because some communist madman sends us to Gulags for reading the bible.

Stalin and other crazy communist dictators were invested in communism, forced communism, a failed political philosophy that they insisted on keeping despite the evidence it was destroying everything. If we could rank blind faith, I'm sure that would rank in the top 5 somewhere.

"The real problem is not religion or secularism but inflexible and intolerant creeds."

Here I think I can actually say that I , In principle, agree with you. The problem is that most religions, if they are not washed out beyond recognition to some kind of semi-secular "Just be nice to everyone"-philosophy that doesnt really have much basis in the actual text they are based on, Is in principle inflexible and intolerant. Again see the first few sentences of the Qur'an "There is no room for doubt" NO ROOM FOR DOUBT, if thats not inflexible, then nothing is. "Everyone who doesnt believe every word of this book will recieve a grevious punishment" If thats not intolerance, then nothing is. The bible is the same thing, in principle intolerant and inflexible.


Once again, you can change my mind. I can say "I know what it takes"

Can you?

Ok, here is the VERY FIRST GODDAMN SECTION in the Qur'an:

SECTION: 1
Alif L'am M'im.[1] This is the Book in which there is no doubt. (Since its Author, Alla
the Creator of this universe, possesses complete knowledge, there is no room for
doubt about its contents.) It is a guide for those who are God conscious,[2] who
believe in the Unseen, who establish Salah (five regular daily prayers) and spend in
charity out of what We have provided for their sustenance;[3] who believe in this
Revelation (the Qur'an) which is sent to you (O Muhammad) and the Revelations
which were sent before you (Torah, Psalms, Gospel...) and firmly believe in the
Hereafter.[4] They are on true Guidance from their Lord and they are the ones who
will attain salvation.[5] 2:[1-5]
In fact, as for those who reject Faith; it is the same, whether you warn them or you
don't, they will not believe.[6] Allah has sealed their hearts and their hearing, their
eyes are covered, and there is a grievous punishment for them.[7] 2:[6-7]

Would you look at that, we infidels are doomed right from the outset, I better go indoctrinate my kids with this crap.

This is the recurring theme of the whole fucking book.(as is the case with most religious books.) Anyone who doesnt see this, I guess Allah must have blinded them as much as he has blinded me. (BTW seeing as he has blinded me already, why should he then punish me further? guess I'm just too blind to understand this flawless logic)