Mars Rover:Why Does It Hate Jesus?

[LastSpartanInforce]

Religion is like a leg cast, Annoying and a pain in the ass.

[MRClarke1987]

I could be way off here, so dont flame me, I'd rather be corrected with a positive answer, so every one can realise what religion has done to our race.

religion = war

religion = 1000 years behind in modern technology

religion = jesus tv or whatever it is

Science = Medicine, Better understanding of space

Science = Better, Cleaner technologies and energy

Science = Fired the Hubble up God's anus

If I go to hell for what I said, I guess I will have to bite the pillow and sing for England!

[xXWraithSoldierXx]

@MRClarke1987 Religion = Slowed our advances by a thousand years. Good job!

[luvdomus]

That accent is about as Russian as Boris Badenov.

[SFsc616171]

So, all impact craters on Mars happened at the same point in time, right? Then explain the meteors that still come here! Earth is 6000 years old, eh? Then why does a figurine pulled from the Willensdorf area in Austria, near the Danube River, is 35,000 years old?

[GarryTheAtheist]

JESUS SLAVES

[AdamandEnoch]

Pure genius!

[geoffart]

I felt the bible's purpose isnt to teach about the physical universe; its about a spiritual one that the bible considers far more important. If the bible started talking about billions of years and electrons, then that would be a huge distraction to people that read it from the most important messages within! The minor details probably needed to be explained in terms of things people would accept. 4000 yrs sounds a very long time 2000yrs ago, and 1000000000 years is mind blowing to them!

[AdamandEnoch]

I think I understand what you're going for, but it's too radical for both theologists and atheists. Good path to follow though, that of your own.

[geoffart]

I read the bible from beginning to end, and that was how I could reconcile everything I know.

With a science background (physics). When I was at school, they used to say electrons were balls, then they said point charged particles, now they are prob waves that satisfy a complicated equation. Why would I explain that to a child?

evolution and biology knowledge and physics are only a human interpretation of reality. its all relative.... what we see with our eyes in the physical world.

[AdamandEnoch]

I feel that your own your own path, and what's wrong with questioning? Aren't we naturally pondering creatures?

I was saying I understand why so many people thumb downed your comment, I on the other hand understand why you came to that conclusion. You've found your own answer (or at least some part of it) and that's great.

[formless777]

It isn't all relative. Scientific method creates a climate where higher and higher levels of objectivity, and therefore unbiased observation become possible. This leads to an understanding which generates increasingly accurate predictability with regards to the natural world. Or you can read the Bible which has none of this, and simply say God did it, and go live in a mud hut like a medieval peasant, scared of every natural phenomenon being an angry god.

[geoffart]

ha, but there is a true limit, one that sicence can never understand. In quantum mechanics, a fundamental concept is uncertanty: we truelly cannot say when certain things happen. its not for lack of infomation, it is a true fact that works into quantum. What you think is order on a maco scale is infact not organised on the level of the tiny universe. You can never ever predict when a single partical will decay, but you can predict when a group will decay. this is a repeated theme.

[formless777]

The issue of Quantum uncertainty is less of an issue these days than it was. Sadly I think you are using somewhat obsolete information. These days the uncertainty principle has been solved, at least as far as the twin slit electron experiment is concerned. I think the basic model holds true for other things as well, given enough time and research, all questions and conundrums get solved, as king the right question is far more important than any other factor.

[geoffart]

Trust me: the uncertainty principal is at the heart of quantum, and its not something to be solved. Its not an open-ended problem. Its at the very heart of quantum. Its the fundamental principals of quantum that the quant world is indeterministic. I'm not a layman in that area; I'm up-to-date in quantum. Without those principals, quantum mechanics would collapse. the uncertainty principal is very much an issue, if you want to use quantum mechanics, today as much as it ever was.

[formless777]

Try again. That just isn't the case, You aren't up to date, even my information on the multi-slit experiment and what has been coming out of Germany and CERN is old now. Sadly what you are saying just simply isn't correct, and if you are "up to date" then I worry about the institution where you are studying.

[geoffart]

I am currently doing quantum mechanics. I have my books in front of me. The publish date of the book is 2009. This is the material currently being taught to undergrad final and post grads. This is the material taught at every UK university, when they wish to teach quantum. is no way that a university teach against uncertainty p. u may be talking about new theory? but its not mainstream. 'trans-temporal strands' shows no results on an internet search, so I find hard to belive its a common idea?

[formless777]

The information was sufficiently well reasoned to make it into New Scientist about 4 years ago. As far as I am aware, it is still reasonably cutting edge and MIT also has a hand in it. The idea is that by treating the electron as a "strand" it solves the wave/particle duality and accounts for the multi-slit results as well as other tests.

[geoffart]

worked very difficult subject (still have trouble in some areas). When doing the physics, is a lot more maths than words, and isnt like new scientist. You read an article with some cutting edje physics talking about new theory (i read those too), but they come out with stuff like that all time, but based on past observations. They would not wipe out the founding principal of quant. It would shake science. Its like trying to argue against moment existing, or granvity: im talking first principals.

[formless777]

Of course they don't wipe out what has gone before, but some of the previous work is shown to be based on principles less sound than later experiments demonstrate. It is rare for anything which completely removes a pre-existing theory to come along.

[geoffart]

You see, if I myself were talking about some brand new concept that only just came out, whose founder had not been awarded the noble price in 1900-1920, then perhaps a new theory could come out and superceed it without media or higherundergrad and grad quantum even knowing, but if you took bricks out of the bottom of the building, it would fall down. The uncertanty and quantum indeterminism: these are grass roots. At quants heart is the schrodinger equation, which we learned and learned.

[formless777]

Note, I never mentioned that they had disproved Schrodinger, I was wondering when you would bring that up. On the other hand, Chaos theory tells us that if we are aware of the start conditions to enough decimals that the outcome is never in doubt. So potentially there is even a way around the issue of the cat in the box.

[geoffart]

accurately predicted with a large sample of quantum particles all going through the same measurement. We can say the probability of a particle appearing at x is the modulus squared of the probability amplitude, which relates to the wave function. But we have to deal in probability when we talk about smaller systems, because at quants heart is indeterminism. There is no theory that believes you can predict where a particle is before a measurement, or when a single nucleus will decay.

[geoffart]

probability prediction run through quantum, because they are its spine. Everything is build on the fact that we may know with certainty what the final state of a many particle system will be (how many nuc decay in a lump of uranium over 10^6yrs), but we can never ever know when a single nucleus will decay, even though they are all identical in every-way. We can never know what path an electron will take without measuring it. Its a very strange world at that level; common-sense does not apply.

[formless777]

Actually let me put forwards an alternative here. The heart of QP is the statistics involved (as a psychologist I know a little about stats, lol), and it occurs to me that the philosophy of statistics is intrinsically indeterminate, being essentially a negativist rather than a positivist approach to modeling. Have you considered the old problem that when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail ?

[geoffart]

effectively, but then people who discovered these things went further. They moved around the limitation to see the patterns. The wave property controls the stats. the wave obeys all previous understanding of wave mechanics (interference..etc). the wave contains all possible predictions of observations which are obtained by performing operations on that wave. But despite that, there is still no way to actually say what one single element of the big picture will do or where it will be found.

[formless777]

Well, the fact that the problem appears to have been solved for the placement of electrons would suggest that if it can be done once it can be done again. Sounds like Nobel Prize stuff to me. I am a firm believer that human intelligence can do literally anything given enough time and enough resources.

[geoffart]

what physics is really about is observing things, noting down what you see and how a system behaves, then if you come across another system, you may see those same rules. If you do, then you know there is a link. Stats is a tool just to confirm the pattern here. This is the point where Einstein said "god does not play dice" interesting how indeterminism threatened his believe in god, where as in this discussion it is the reverse.

[formless777]

Do you really think it is the reverse ? I think the inherrent randomness in the system does a lot to debunk god, and quantum indeterminism is actually just the current limit of human knowledge which will probably fall within my lifetime. There are already "chips" emerging.

[geoffart]

current theory and experimental results: it says an electron has no trajectory and does not even travel as a particle (like a ball for example). It travels as a probability wave, which collapses upon measurement. It collapses to a point, where the probability of the collapse at any point (where the particle is) is proportional to the amplitude of the wave function squared.

[geoffart]

quantum texts, at every opportunity its drilled into us again and again and again that it isn't a lack of information that causes indeterminism and uncertainty. That those things are a part of the world at the quantum level. The maths is amazing, because it predicts things, such as why electrons repel each other.

imagine a load of dice that keep changing their value randomly, but when a hand is near the chance of a 6 becomes greater. maybe cant see the hand, only its effect: a prob wave.

[formless777]

But dice aren't a properly turbulent system. If you are properly aware of the start condition you can always predict the outcome. There is actually an industry in scalpel blades which breaks coke bottles and always generates a 1 micron edge blade that always falls in a red circle near the bottle dropping machine. That system doesn't even rely on a perfect knowledge of start conditions.

[geoffart]

no, but for the sake of a thought experiment, we'll say imagine a dice was a perfect random number generator, until a hand past near, then 6 became more likely.

There are strange things at that level, such as particles not being distinguishable: they are effectively indistinguishable, unlike real world objects, and that creates changes in how the system works.

You can never relate an electron to anything in the macro world. Its nothing like a marble with a negative large.

[geoffart]

It does point to something deeper, yes, but the solution wont be anything like classical physics. It will probably just get stranger. I cant see quantum uncertainty disappearing any time soon. Its well established.

It hard to just let go of classical physics, where everything makes sense in the normal world, but to do quantum, you have to. Is hard to accept or understand what's going on, but it all works. Its not this world at that level. We can't compare. The maths models do well though.

[geoffart]

wave/particle duality come from Broglie matter waves, of which the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle via =h/p. If particle has large mass, has large momentum, since mom proportional to mass. Interaction of this wave which produces interference effects. Small this wavelength, the less need of a quantum treatment of a particle. hence wave treatment apply to less massive particles, such as electrons.

[geoffart]

if you were right about what I just told you being wrong, then it would shake the physics world to its foundations. There is no university that would totally teach different theory. Quantum has new ideas on the fringes, but old theory doesnt just get thrown out. It is predicted and backed up by experimentation. Just what part of the two slit interference exp is invalid? The wave nature/particle duality perhaps of particles? the interference observation? Please link to data.

[geoffart]

however, I did notice the term "trans-temporal" came up in relation to "Essays on interpretation in social science ".

I cant see any other matches to those words on a good search, even include word 'quantum'. However, if you type in the two slit experiment in wiki, you'll see the same description I just told you on here. I spent most of the summer doing quantum measurments, including electron diffraction and x-ray diffraction experiments. So, I'm aware of what these experiments mean.

[geoffart]

only people who don't know science believe that science has all the answers, and put so much faith in it. Its really a very limited tool in this universe. If you want to build something, it can help you manipulate matter and energy, but you can never understand everything.

consciousness, in itself, is a mystery. We exist, and experience our universe. That has no place in science. I would only be atheist if in a universe with no conscious being, but then I wouldn't exits either.

[formless777]

Consciousness is an emergent phenomenon like many others. Science is making continuous inroads there, especially in neurobiology and neuropsychology. In time no doubt that too will be uncovered. Science has only been explaining the world for under 400 years and is only getting into its stride now. The project is still very young and has much to do. Religion by comparison has been around uselessly retarding humanity for thousands of years.

[geoffart]

the two slit experiment you speak of is an observation that shows that electons have wave properties. It shows that you cannot determine which path an electron takes unless you make a measurment. When you make a measurment the electon interference pattern vanishes. You can know momentum with certainty, or you can know position with certainty, but you cannot know both these things, as that is impossible. when you discover one, you destroy the other.

[formless777]

That is now factually incorrect. The experiment has been revised and a completely new explanation of the two slit experiment and its outcome which refutes what you have just said exists. Clearly this area interests you, which is great, but these tests indicate that electrons are better understood as "trans-temporal strands" (my own words, I'm certain the physicists have better terminology).

[geoffart]

and the strangest thing is an electon that goes through two slits (the equivilant of) will interfere wih itself in a way like light. This means that single electron has travelled through both slits at once, in fact. But if we put a cloud chamber to see which path it followed through a slit, well then we would destoy the interference pattern, and end up with the wave collapsing into a single point. As long as we dont know the slit, we have a wave.

[geoffart]

biology and neuro-science cant answer that. All they can do is show how the brain process information. They can say such and such is responsible for recognising faces..etc. They cant say "I've trapped some consciousness in a test tube". The only way I could write out a god is to assume we exist in an endless bubble of existence, that, whilst we exp passing from beginning to end, that is illusion, and we have permanent shape in space and time, but even then, that would suggest greater purpose.

[formless777]

They can't answer these questions... yet. Once people said that humans would never learn the secret of flight, or that medicine was weaker than prayer for healing illness. Basically people are full of crap on these issues. Given enough time, the correct methodology, and the resources, there is no problem science can't solve.

[geoffart]

There are some things in physics that very clever people who don't do physics will always find extremely hard to accept. One is special relativity, and the other is the indeterminism of quantum. Even the people who discovered these things didn't believe them, and tried to disprove them initially, but all they ended up doing was cementing them even further.

thing to remember uncertainty is fundamental property, not a limitation due to not having sufficient information. Its hard to accept.

[geoffart]

We really arent living in the universe we see with our eyes. It totally changes depending on your point of view, in that sense, its relative. If we changed state after death, we would experience a totaly differnt reality right here. I know there is no proof of that, but there is no proof against it... however, the tipping point is that we are already aware, and that must be funamental property of our universe. why would matter have awareness property?

[geoffart]

when I said its all relative, I'm talking about an observation of the universe changes depending on your frame of reference. Two people with a different frame of reference who observe the same event will not agree on what they see. This is not because either one is right or wrong, but because they observe from different frames. therefore, it is not possible to assume that the universe we see is all that exists, because we cant say how many other states there are.

[formless777]

So what you mean by a spiritual universe, is one that doesn't actually exist ? The word spirit comes from the Latin respiritus, and is a mis-identification of the soul with respiration. In short, there is no such thing.

[rezcrash88]

When did you and Mr Rover , last go for a drink .

[knazni]

Kazakstan have very nice science! Is a very nice

[BabieshatetheBible]

hahaha

[davefan12]

......a machine hates jesus?

[formless777]

No, actually Jesus' evil ghost (the Church) hates the robot for making him look like a liar.

[ectogambit]

GREAT SUCCESS!

[magick205]

I love it. But you forgot the bit about teaching "an alternate viewpoint" or "teach the controversy". And let's get some tithing going to bring Jebus to the pagan Martians. Keep'em coming.

[GBTMK]

wow who ever made this video needs to get there facts strait first of all the bible does not say anything about the earths age and just because there is a creator in mars does not mean anything just what kind of dating methods are they using they aren't on mars so how would they posibly know how old that creator on mars is many people believe in creation and their is more science to back up creation than there is for evolution evolution breaks many scientific laws that we have today.

[lifeisgummo]

now take a deep breath.

everything you said was false. are you a troll or just venomfangx moronic?

[damianpoirier]

"there is a creator in mars"

Does every planet have it's own Creator? Are some Creators older that others? If the WORD is so important and sacred, why be so SLOPPY with it?

[eliteobserver]

We should still be seeing the hand of God because suns and planets are still being created! D:

I can't wait till we develop the technology to look at every level of cosmic evolution. The universe is a time machine.

[StupidCreationists]

"bible does not say anything about the earths age "

Thats not fundys say, anyway do you agree with the bible man was created 6000 years ago?

"more science to back up creation than there is for evolution "

Yer right funny how only fundys realise this and the scientists dont see it that way.

[formless777]

Actually the Bible does mention the age of the Earth. Bishop Berkley discovered from his extensive bible studies that the Earth came into existence in 4004 BC.  The Bible also teaches that the Earth has a ceiling called "the firmament" and that Mars is stuck to that ceiling with divine putty.

[AdamandEnoch]

Stupid dinosaurs, they should just be left out of the equation...

[7Row7enn7]

Why a Russian accent lol?

[jebus6kryst]

"You are not loving Jesus?"

This is hilarious. Wonderful satire. I only wish you had more.

[detlevi]

The Bible predicted Blackberrys and texting and warned that they will be the tools of Satan. The Bible predicted everything.

[WraithOutpost]

lmao

[globs89]

nice spin

[VSanko]

Narrated wonderfully by Boris Yermomsabich. Sounds like the lost episode of Rocky & Bullwinkle....

[VSanko]

2 atheists making love: "Oh,oh, oh, Je...I mean NO ONE! Oh,NO ONE,NO ONE,NO ONE,Oh, Oh,.....

[padraicbg]

Totally hilarious! I busted a gut laughing. Great job!

[KarnageJ77]

Nice comment nawcom. Which famous film/play, or newspaper article did you get that one from? Judging from the bad grammar I have seen all over the internet, and on YouTube, I would say that all of you are just a bunch of idiots trying to look "Sophistimacated" (yes I know i spelled that wrong to prove a point).

[littlemrbandmanjr]

This is great! I live in Colorado Springs and there are so many neo-conservative evangelical cristians running around here it makes me sick. They should all watch this video and see the logic in atheism, or at least be less like "we are right and you are wrong and if you don't think we are right you deserve to die". I hate evangelicals.

[duhCider]

Rover built by agnostic engineers, designed by atheistic scientists, commanded by demonic-possessed programmers --- AND they all prayed like hell that the damn thing would work.

[inthezone88]

The bible does not even suggest that "creation" or whatever you want to call it is only 6000 years old.

That doesn't mean "evolution" is true either. The truth is probably so bizarre that we couldn't understand it anyway.

And none of this 6000 year bit has a damn thing to do with loving the mythical "Jesus."

[Jeremyguru]

If you read the bible literally, and do so math, that's why many fundi-retards believe the earth is 6000 years old.

[crackerass01]

Some Christians actually believe that Humans have been on the earth for six thousand years, but don't believe that the Earth and Universe were created in a LITERAL week.

[Jeremyguru]

That's nothing new...Christians claiming that the bible means something other than what it actually says.

[crackerass01]

I know that this video is a parody, but many people believe that if life is found on another planet or any matter that predates 6000 years is found, that this somehow proves the Bible to be invalid, and that Jesus was not who he said he was. In fact it would prove nothing of the sort.

[Jeremyguru]

Lol...umm, we have already discovered much "matter" that is older than 6000 years.

Why doesn't the bible mention anything about aliens?

[crackerass01]

Whether or not fossils or rock have already been found, isn't the point. I still say that it doesn't invalidate the Bible.

Just because something is not mentioned in the Bible, it's existence doesn't prove it untrue. If you could show me a scripture in the Bible that categorically stated that there is no life on other planets then you would have a case. The Bible doen't say that other life DOESN'T exist. Your reasoning is flawed.

[Jeremyguru]

Science invalidates many of the primitive claims found in the bible.

I'm sure that you'd say the same thing about microrganisms. Just because the bible doesn't mention them...bla bla bla. Of course, the real reason the bible doesn't mention microrganisms is because people (and the sky nanny) didn't know they exist.

[crackerass01]

"Of course, the real reason the bible doesn't mention microrganisms is because people (and the sky nanny) didn't know they exist."

Is that FACT? That's what YOU believe in your anxiety to prove the Bible wrong. There are many animals and plant types not mentioned in the Bible. So they didn't know that Badgers existed? Right? The Bible is a book of guidance and acts as a warning: God only included in it, what was relevant.

[oztronix]

Do I hate more the video, or the russian-english ?

I don't know, but it has a lot of comedy...

All up: ? His english gives me a cancer.

[Breothain]

Finally, like I said earlier, atheism doesn't 'depend' on, or have to 'based on', anything, because it's precisely *not* a belief system by its very nature. Atheism is the absence of a belief system, in this case an absence in the belief of a divinity. It's not an alternative belief, it's simply an absence. The idea of 'atheism' as a belief system, which is somehow unversally innate to those who don't believe in a god, is just wrong.

[BelovedSpear]

It is a belief system in the same way that anarchism is a political philosophy. Denying the validity of any overarching social and political order is a political statement, even in negation. Similarly, atheism is the belief in the absence of a divinity, and as such accrues the structures and presumptions of a belief system, even in negation.

[StyxHexenhammer]

Respect all faiths, and the lack thereof, and everyone will have peace for once.

What the Hell am I supposed to tell my children twenty years down the road when they come to me after being in a fight, and ask why people fight?

[Breothain]

What constitutes 'proof' therefore in a philosophical and scientific sense is what is likely to hold true beyond any reasonable doubt. And by that logic, the non-existence of a god can be 'proved' by both science and philosophy.

[BelovedSpear]

In a scientific system, yes. Philosophically, though, "reasonable doubt" extends a wee bit deeper than the more shallow adherents of atheistic thought tend to be comfortable with.

[Breothain]

Before I go on, I just want to answer your point about using science to 'prove' a god doesn't exist. Firstly, you can't prove a god does exist using science, so I'm not sure what your point was. Secondly, *nothing* can be 'proved', ever, by any means of investigation, including the scientific method. There's always the slight chance that what we consider 'proof' might only apply to 99.9999999% of similar situations, and that somewhere there's an exception.

[kickinbackinOC]

Atheism must be based on science, right? to claim to be atheist means you are sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is no God, otherwise you would have to be an agnostic. Now, using the scientific method of experimentation and observation, prove that God does not exist. You can't do it. Atheism is not scientific. Its a beleif system, nothing more.

[BelovedSpear]

You're right...agnosticism is a much more honest position. Be careful using that argument with atheists, though. They have several very pointed and seemingly valid responses.

[juice212]

Yeah agnosticism is the more honest road, but the mud still hits you from the theist/atheist battles.

Too bad we can't just get along and drop the argument, but then again that means people have to stop acting like children and grow up.

[mobiltec]

I don't think it's anybodies damn business what I believe in or what I don't believe in. So they can ALL fuck off and die for all I care. Now I believe I will have another beer. And that I'm sure we can all agree on...

[Dondragmer]

I don't think atheism is any less honest or more so than agnosticism or theism. Certainly not the latter. But what constitutes the basis for honesty? If it is a belief (in non-belief) system, tantamount to a faith than it is no less honest than its opposite, theism. It does not have to be based on science at all, which is what you are using as a criterion for honesty. In my daily life I do not have to refer to science to make a claim for the honesty of an act. Nor is art honest by science.

[Breothain]

Actualy that's not true at all. Atheism doesn't have to be based on science, or indeed anything at all, as I'll get on to. Science as we understand it is a very new way of looking at the world, only coming about it the last few hundred years. On the other hand, there have been recorded examples of atheists going back thousands of years, such as among the ancient Greeks. So atheism doesn't depend on science.

[nawcom]

why don't you prove that there isn't a flying spaghetti monster who rules the world? Do a little research on logic, theory, and proof. You don't proof that something doesn't exist; you only proof that something does exist. Lack of empirical evidence shows enough for the scientific community to reject the concept of an invisible man, which is why they also accept the theory of evolution; it's empirical evidence. I can't believe people still think like that. "prove that it doesn't exist." heh.

[robm1969]

I know I got the Joke

[robm1969]

How can you hate someting or somebody

that doesn't exist?

[BelovedSpear]

Hmmm. To what are you referring? Remember, this is a parody of fundamentalism, which certainly exists. At least, it did the last time I checked. Wait...yup. Still there.

[macrina9]

Love the rinky dink Holst too...perfect!

[BelovedSpear]

Thanks!  And thanks for subscribing!

[macrina9]

I LOVE this!!!!! it s way toooo funny! I love jesus too but he d laugh too! Love the goofy sputnik accent !

[prideofasia99]

I agree, Jesus had a sense of humor. And he still does.

[w1ndmeta1]

This is severely mentally retarded

[BelovedSpear]

Why? You do understand that it's parody, don't you?

[wordavee]

I like it, the more poeple who start standing up and saying belief in god is superstitious, illogical, unfounded rubbish, the sooner this world will be a better place. VOTE FOR THE ATHEISTS!

[BelovedSpear]

Aye, but parodying the absurdity of fundamentalism isn't the same thing.  Faith and science can happily coexist.

[gurelin]

What the hell does Jesus and Mars have anything to do? Jesus is Jesus and was it him who said how old the age of the universe is? Where did he get the knowledge? Did he just say it on top of his head. "Oh yeah, the rocks in Mars were "created" 6000 years ago." Was it in the Matthew, Luke, John or what? Stop making senseless argument about Jesus and science. You just have to know the "knowledge" to say stuff like that.

[BelovedSpear]

I'll stop making these senseless arguments right after you look up the word "parody" in the dictionary.

[SkeksisRule]

Yeah, I don't think he really understood the sarcasm. But what can you do?

[SkeksisRule]

You people should seriously stop trying to learn new stuff. It's bad for jesus.

[BelovedSpear]

On the contrary! If we really learned it, it'd be great. Not so much for Jesus, but for the folks who think you have to be willfully ignorant of the mechanics of the universe to follow him.

[SkeksisRule]

But you just HAVE to believe in jesus. If you don't you'll go to hell and burn forever. Science is evil. So is ALL knowledge for that matter. We should all sit in the dark, afraid to know the truth.

[BelovedSpear]

I do believe in Jesus. As a pastor, I'd be a bit remiss if I didn't. But the truth about the mechanics of the universe doesn't get in the way of that faith. Science is a major obstacle for fundamentalists, of course. But fundamentalism isn't faith.

[SkeksisRule]

I disagree, because there are people in this world that have as much faith in evolution as you might have in god. The main difference being that evolution is based on theory,(which has evidence to support it) and religion is mostly based on old books with stories in them. I know, that's a really simple way of describing it, but it's true.

[BelovedSpear]

But..um...I believe in the validity of evolutionary theory. It's clearly how God ordered creation. I don't have faith in it, though, at least not as faith would be effectively defined. Religion isn't founded on old books, but on the ecstatic experiences that those books attempt to express. But that comes from my being a Mystic and not a Skeksis, eh?

[SkeksisRule]

Ahh, the old "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." So now christians are trying to explain evolution with another "god did it"? As you can guess, I don't follow any religious doctrine. Just because the world seems to have a common design doesn't mean it took an intelligent designer to create it. I could go deeper, but there isn't enough room here. You get points for the Dark Crystal reference, though. :D

[BelovedSpear]

Yeah, I surmised as much, my Gelfling-draining friend. There's no reason evolution can't be compatible with faith...it's only fundamentalist literalism that has an issue with it. But then, they have issue with pretty much everything. While much of what I believe is similar to intelligent design, that belief is a result of faith and not of the same order as the rationally testable hypotheses that define the scientific method.

[SkeksisRule]

Well there aren't too many like you. At least I can say that. Most creationists shun evolution like a vampire to a cross, without even giving it a moments thought. I understand what you mean about the fundamentalist literalism. I respect your views, since you seem to at least put some thought into it. Myself, I'm a die-hard skeptic with an interest in science. I believe in Trial by Stone!

[swagger93]

hahaha

[Togenberg]

hahahaha

Excellent.

Djomamavich raises some good points.

The liberal, humanist bias of the rover is now clearly out there for all to see. I know I feel convicted.

[Togenberg]

hahahaha

Excellent.

Djomamavich raises some good points.

The liberal, humanist bias of the rover is now clearly out there for all to see. I know I feel convicted.

[iuliusCamillus]

The devil made those Martian rocks look 4 billion years old, and did you notice how he carved the surface to look like water once flowed there? ;-)

[malcolm2468]

analysis of decaying isotopes in the rocks gives an indication of age..not how they look.

[Frostokovich]

Creationism: Explaining things so you just don't have to think about 'em anymore.

[cdk007]

Love it. Great Video.

[joebonk]

why Borat kazakstan accent and not accent of southern usa?

[BelovedSpear]

That'd be too easy. May as well mix it up a bit.

[henrywiltcher]

It's a Russian accent, not a Borat one.

[revjimbob]

Burn the heretic rover!

[PeteUtonic]

Nice point!