Storm by Tim Minchin (with text)

bloodsimple94 Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - just brilliant

oThaBeck Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - ok, so all the mysteries ever solved has turned out to be not magic. but what about those mysteries who's never been solved? how come they never get figured out?

MolanoZwolle Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - Well, you've got a few option. Either they aren't mysteries, or they will be solved. What if a caveman had this very conversation with you that lightning hasn't been "solved yet" back then, and he claimed it was freaking zeus who makes it. He could argue the very same thing you are arguing now about everything he doesn't yet know. That doesn't mean it's freaking magic. But hey, I'm glad for you that if it's not yet explained you believe it's magic or a god or whatever you want to call it.

gfw12345 Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - Well put MolanoZwolle, and remember - if you think science can't explain it, what are you going to try to explain it with instead? Pseudo-science only has the ability to hypothesise. However, science - by definition - seeks to prove whether that hypothesis is true/false. Which makes your 'soul' feel more knowledgeable? Did you even listen to Tim at 5:49?

gfw12345 Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - It is slightly about religion but mostly about what's often called 'pseudo-science' Listen to 5:49 again - it's a very good point. For example: just because you take a 'natural' remedy for 3 weeks and your cold dissapears doesn't mean the herbs did the healing - more likely it was just your own immune system. Tim uses the example of homeopathy. And correctly states that if you could actually show that it works - a good scientist would have no problem with adopting it. But no-one has yet...

Pspimp Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - That makes sense. Hey thank you, man.

Blueman2805 Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - We haven't solved them *yet*. But every mystery which has been solved was at one point a mystery that hadn't yet been solved. What if we had simply given up and said "It's magic"? We would never know where the moon goes during the day, or how to cure all of the diseases which we now regard as a minor inconvenience but which would probably have killed your great grandparents.

Blueman2805 Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - We can't give up on them and say "it's magic, it's the supernatural". We have to do what people did back in the hey-day of scientific discovery, what they're going now, and carry on working at it. Every mystery must have an answer, and so far every mystery we've ever solved has been solved through science and analysis by men and women dedicated to their fields. We'll never find the real answer if we just give up here and now.

spazfox Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - Supposing that Chopra did, as you say, mop the floor with Dawkins, this would only show that Chopra is better at debate, not that his information is superior. I've actually watched this interview, and Chopra makes very fuzzy claims. "There are a school of physicists..." "I believe there's controversy..." et cetera.

oooonions Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - i find chopra more pragmatic.logical and more rounded in his explanations[believe it or not].i dont believe he makes fuzzy claims,the claims that he makes are.... the effects of 'observer effect over 'wave particle duality in experiments such as 'the double slit experiment' and also the theory of 'discontinuity and uncertainty which is way too complexed even refer to on here

SexxyAmmberr Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - wtb a sexi boy toy any offers? ^^ i am cute and sexi too

TimmyBessel Says:

Nov 10, 2009 - To refute 5:49, Why are american scientists who happen to be open minded being kicked out of universities for even mentioning intellegent design, and it is purely scientific. Richard Dawkins also admitted to intellegent aliens seeding the earth, but still yet where did those aliens come from? I'm just being open here.

TingTang1234567 Says:

Nov 10, 2009 - @TimmyBessel Meh, People confuse the scientific method with free speach. They aren't the same. In science you can pretty much say anything you want...but you'll be laughed out on your ass if you can't present Evidence. Intelligent Design has been shown to be almost exclusively a political get around to allow Creationism in schools and there isn't any evidence for it. The closest thing ID has to evidence is 'You don't know where everything came from!' Which just isn't a good argument ;)

TingTang1234567 Says:

Nov 10, 2009 - @titsonabulldozer Spiritual answers have been disregarded because they don't have evidence to match up now our understanding has progressed. Do you believe neurological dissorders and malformation can cause epilepsy and seizures? people were just as like to suffer from them throughout human history. But before we knew what it was, it was called demon possession. Which is more likely? Demons, or seizures?

TimmyBessel Says:

Nov 10, 2009 - Yeah I would agree on that, It does sound a little far-fetched. I'm just curious because I've learned and I really looked into it, there is actually no proof for Macro-evolution, To me it seems they are constantly trying to prove it by more and more theories and ideas that are just thought up. Well more like philisophical ideas versus scientific proof. I'm just not sure whether science is being abused or not. I'm cool with everyone's opinion and I don't hold it against anybody.

TingTang1234567 Says:

Nov 11, 2009 - @TimmyBessel ;) Well as a Biological Sciences student who's literally looking at evidence for it, and not reading junk websites like AnswersInGenesis, trust me, there is evidence for Macroevolution. Scientists aren't trying to prove it with more and more theories. It's proven on it's own merits, However all other theories in biology tie into it (For example the theory of genetic inheritence) and they fit together perfectly. The phylogenetic tree of life is a good example of this. :)

gfw12345 Says:

Nov 12, 2009 - Scientists are often the MOST open minded people around. As Tim says - if you can show THAT it works and HOW it works - a good scientist will believe it. Intelligent design isn't scientific. I is not proved by manipulating specific variables. I do agree, however, that it is probably the most popular justification for the existence of god among scientists

gfw12345 Says:

Nov 12, 2009 - Scientists are the MOST open-minded people. Ref: 6:15 Intelligent design is not scientific - it has not been proved by manipulation of variables. Although I conceded that it is a popular theory even among scientists. Richard Dawkins - probably being facetious. If you're really 'open minded' - read into what defines scientific study - start with stuff about correlation vs. causation. It's holeproof logic and can really be useful in all aspects of your life.

shadydentist Says:

Nov 12, 2009 - Ah yes, why does science choose evolution over intelligent design? Because one is a theory that fits well with empirical evidence and provides useful conclusions, while the other is an intellectual dead-end.

thriftybat Says:

Nov 15, 2009 - The distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution mostly a constructed one. There is no such distinction in reality; macro evolution is simply the accumulation of many "micro" changes. Once many "micro" evolutionary processes are undergone, and the original organism has diverged from the original population so far as for them to be no longer mutually fertile, you have a "macro" change. They're not different, one is just an extension of the other.

titsonabulldozer Says:

Nov 15, 2009 - @shadydentist does evolution not have a dead beginning if intelligent design has a dead-end??

clemzzz Says:

Nov 16, 2009 - @thriftybat good explaination .. i'll try and remember that , as i get tongued tied trying to explain that macro micro are in essence the same thing

ilgri283 Says:

Nov 17, 2009 - what does "dead beginning" even mean ? :-)

itcanbecheezcaketime Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - IN FOR A PENNY, IN FOR A POUND! I like to walk around and say this.

Mayokitty7 Says:

Nov 24, 2009 - The thing is good, but you did a nice job on the titles too.