Google Videos - Best of Google Video


(also best of YouTube)
Best of google video.com is not sponsored by or affiliated with or .

Michael Shermer at TED Talk 2005

 
Interesting
January 10, 2007
 
 29
 16
64%
Get 2Gb free online storage with Dropbox


Comments

Ulf  -  January 10, 2007, 22:27
Thanks for the video Ville
G-? (guest)  -  January 10, 2007, 22:36
What a great speaker. Sure he jumbles his words or stutters occasionally, but he's a pretty likeable personality. Great speech. What's the TED Talk?
Gul (guest)  -  January 11, 2007, 00:18
Try to count the number of terrorists killed on Fox News! Noticed anything unusual? Like the human rights or the american constitution being flushed down the toilet?
pre (guest)  -  January 11, 2007, 03:43
I'm sorry. I just don't agree or even see how this evolutionist thinks. No technological breakthroughs have taken place because of the theory that the earth is 4 billion years old or there was a big bang out of nothing 20 billion years ago. If you honestly believe evolution, how come you can't and won't post any of the opposite view on this site? Is it because you don't even want to consider it? And "the miracle occurs" is not the only argument for creation. In my view, no one listens.
 Brody  -  January 11, 2007, 04:54
This was a waste of time watching this. No valuable information was given in this 8 min clip. He might be a good public speaker but that is about it. Once again I am basing this on this short clip. Science is fact end of story.
G-? (guest)  -  January 11, 2007, 04:58
HOLY SHIT. Were you supposed to learn something by coming to bestofgooglevideo.com? I did not know this!
EH? (guest)  -  January 11, 2007, 05:00
"Science is fact end of story." YES! But what is science????
 PBD  -  January 11, 2007, 05:44
science is fact end of story? that's bullshit. That's even worse than the religious fundies out there. If you really think that you have no fucking clue what science is all about. The very essence of science is that it DOESN'T just say "this is so end of story" but that people try to find things wrong with it and then come up with better ideas and test them and test them again and again and again, until the likelihood of it being wrong is practically zero. That is the point that scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, theory of evolution, germ theory of disease, global warming, etc) have reached. The likelihood of them being wrong is so insignificantly tiny that you would have to be crazy to think they are. And pre, first off the big bang has nothing to do with evolution, secondly i've already talked too much so i won't go into the big bang, and thirdly evolution (the REAL theory of evolution, not your childish grasp of it) is used every single day in a wide range of diciplines, from medicine and pest management to biology. ESPECIALLY biology. Like Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." just try opening a journal on biology and you will see how it is fundamental to the vast majority of studies. And next time, find out what something is before opening your mouth will you? I suggest talkorigins.org
hey PBD (guest)  -  January 11, 2007, 05:51
i always hear evolutionists talking about how this and that is fact. why don't you all make your minds up?
 PBD  -  January 11, 2007, 05:57
Is it a fact that you're who you think you are? TECHNICALLY no. You could argue that you're a brain in a jar being electrically and chemically stimulated in very complex ways that result in the perception of the reality you think you inhabit, which is completely different than that which you really inhabit, it being one of a brain floating in a jar. However, for most intents and purposes we can say that it is a fact that you have arms and legs and eyes and whatnot, and that you use them the way you do. The fact thing is the same with science. Like I said, scientific theories have such a low probability of being wrong that they are considered facts, even though TECHNICALLY there is no such thing as a fact in science.
omg (guest)  -  January 11, 2007, 07:37
do you hear yourself PBD. Its total non-sense.
 costre  -  January 11, 2007, 11:13
On the contrary, PBD pretty much nails it. Both regarding our experience of our reality, aswell as how we make scientific conclusions of our observations.
 PBD  -  January 11, 2007, 17:31
pre- and of course, what has the 600-year-old, life-was-made-from-dust view done for technology? eh? Heck, I dare you to find ONE current, pee-reviewed paper that so much as HINTS that the universe is about 6000 years old, or hints about intelligent design, or anything of the sort. Those views are inhibitory to progress. THEY are the ones who say "it's a fact, end of story", and don't explain anything.
Chris Dlugosz (guest)  -  January 11, 2007, 19:04
most of you commenters are missing the ape in your points. pretty much every human is blind to some set of cognitions, directly forging their empassioned belief structure
 nuke21  -  January 12, 2007, 03:22
I agree with Brody, this was REALLY retarded.
Brody Said (guest)  -  January 12, 2007, 08:28
"Science is fact end of story." But is evolution science?
Paganmoon  -  January 12, 2007, 15:48
Science is fact, and the story continues...
 PBD  -  January 12, 2007, 16:22
"But is evolution science?" Evolution is one of the strongest scientific theories out there. If you don't accept evolution, you're either really ignorant or there's something seriously wrong with you. Any sane, informed person accepts evolution. In fact, that is why over 99.9% of scientists in the relevant fields (worldwide) accept evolution. source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
Naga (guest)  -  January 12, 2007, 18:20
For a bit more specific information on evolution: It's the only theory that can be proven. All other ideas have failed to provide proof. Do remember, however, that evolution doesn't explain where it started. (And, ya, intelligent design have no evidence of proof. No testable theories. And, above all, no room for error. All three needed for it to be called Science, end of discussion.)
Flying (guest)  -  January 12, 2007, 20:57
And while we're at it, there was a recent study about acceptance of evolution and education. To quote Larry Moran: "At the risk of boring anyone with an IQ over 80, let me make the point that Dembski is deliberately missing. In 2002, if you rejected evolution you were an idiot. That's because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The same correlation holds today, only more so." And here's the study he was talking about- http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/american_political_conservatis.php
pre (guest)  -  January 12, 2007, 21:26
i have a feeling if i gave you some "testable theories" for ID, it wouldn't matter, you'd just ignore the science. "It's the only theory that can be proven." I have listened to countless evolutionistic explanations. no dice. "Evolution is one of the strongest scientific theories out there." Yeah its right up there with other fantasies like earth being born off of the wings of eagles. What I find interesting is that you all hide behind the word "Science". You haven't observed or been able to test any of your theories. Its sad. But I'll keep on reading these posts and keep on having people call me stupid. My IQ is quite abit over 80. ;) The fact of the matter is, I don't think anything will convince you to stop believing Evolution. And i have seen nothing to convince me to start.
pre (guest)  -  January 12, 2007, 21:29
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html
ALby (guest)  -  January 12, 2007, 21:32
I know of only 3 polls concerning Creation, Evolution and professional scientists. They are 1. According to ABC News "only 5 percent [Of Scientists] hold the literal Bible view, 40 percent believe in theistic evolution and a majority, 55 percent, believe in evolution without help from God." I don't know the date of this poll. 2. According to a February 1988 poll, 20.6% of professional scientists "completely reject evolution". 3. In a survey of chemists, 48.3% said "it was possible that humans have evolved in a continuous chain of development from simple elements in a primordial soup." 51.7% said that "supernatural intervention played a role." [Murray Saffran, “Why Scientists Shouldn’t Cast Stones,” The Scientist, 5 September 1988, p. 11.]
albydarned (guest)  -  January 12, 2007, 21:32
not the 99.9 percent somebody was talking about.
wow (guest)  -  January 12, 2007, 21:41
"…A tidal wave of new books… threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'."
 PBD  -  January 12, 2007, 22:18
"i gave you some "testable theories" for ID, it wouldn't matter" Ok, bring it on. "I have listened to countless evolutionistic explanations. no dice" Well gee how specific. You can keep on talking, but you haven't said anything so far. No numbers, no facts, no nothing. "You haven't observed or been able to test any of your theories." Natural selection has been observed in hundreds and hundreds of species from finches to peppered moths to guppies to horned lizards. Sexual selection has been too, especially in peacocks. Artificial selection is well documented. Speciation (one species turning into another) has also been observed in Drosophila, Maize, mosquitoes, and goatsbeard plants. Again, go to talkorigins.org. That's probably the best place for it. And before you say anything else, at LEAST read this post: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/handing_out_a_little_rope.php#c273929 Pre, your site has no scientific validity at all. You are getting your information from a bunch of priests and whatnot, not from scientists. Don't be stupid- if you want to have a scientific debate, get scientific sources. There may be one little problem though- like I said, there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting ID/creationism. ALby, those polls are irrelevant. Those surveys include engineers and computer "scientists" and all other kinds of scientists that have absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution. They don't know about evolution, so who gives a damn what THEY think? My source specifically says that if you only consider the people who actually know something about evolution (biologists, naturalists, paleontologists, etc), OVER 99.9% of scientists worldwide accept evolution. wow, those books are old, outdated, and full of bullshit. Not one of them is newer than 20 years. 20 years is a lot when it comes to science.
T roc (guest)  -  January 13, 2007, 19:49
update the freaken site already!
George (guest)  -  January 13, 2007, 20:46
No dice in science? Wrong. Evolution is all about dice. It's like trying to get 2 times 6 on your dice so you can start to put your figure on the playing board. One could say that this is not the first universe created, but it's the only one which "works". All previous ones didn't have 2 sixes and did not survive long enough to give birth to mankind to think about where the universe comes from. Yes, that's my own theory. It's as valid as "god pushed the button on the big bang 13billion years ago" theory or "god created the complete 13billion lighyears across univers bubble with a fingersnap 6000 years ago" theory. Hmm, but who throws the universe generating dice? Call it god, call it vacuum energy, if we find out we could create our own universe. Mybe we did already and this is in fact a universe created by some beeings who found out how to create an universe using some star trek worthy technology. That explains the UFOs, it's the cleaning crew beeing not careful enough when dusting off the mini-universe in the pangalactic science laboratory.
 Brody  -  January 13, 2007, 21:04
You guys have to come out on some other forums to discuss this. I will not explain my views on Best of Google Video This guy is a joke best suited for the unintelligent and narrow minded.
 Zealiot  -  January 14, 2007, 02:15
Geroge - Evolution and the Big Bang Theory is two very different theories! I can actually agree with you on the big bang since no one can really know for sure, however when it comes to the Evolution it's a very different thing (it might not be 100% flawless) but the theory, at least most part of it has and is proven more or less everyday throughout the world in different studies such as Biology. PBD posted a very good link to a post written by Ein Sophistry that proves the Evolution theory aswell as giving sources(once again it's probably not 100% flawless and maybe never be but you can't say it all made up cause it simply isn't)
riiiiight (guest)  -  January 14, 2007, 08:32
you all suck
Hawkeye (guest)  -  January 14, 2007, 08:58
"The fact of the matter is, I don't think anything will convince you to stop believing Evolution. And i have seen nothing to convince me to start." Pre, Have you ever taken a college level course in evolutionary biology from a respectable university? I can say that I haven’t seen anything to convince me that quantum mechanics is true, but if I haven’t ever bothered to try and learn about it then my opinion doesn’t mean bupkis.
 Keisari_P  -  January 14, 2007, 16:28
As for the clip, it was great! It is easy to miss the obvious, if you consentrate on something irrelevant. As for debate on Evolution, it is hard to belive why any educated intelligent person would not accept Theory of Evolution. Evolution theory suggests that all life evolved from simplier organisms and so can continue to evolve. The process itself is only random little DNA-sequence changes controlled by Natural selection. Evidence and testings for example on drosophila (fruit fly) has proven, that species can evolve into a new species that cant reproduce with the original form. Agree 100% with PDB, Zealiot and Hawkeye.
 Deleted0001  -  January 14, 2007, 22:11
There's is a lot "blah, blah" on this page... Great movie, as always, though.
pre (guest)  -  January 15, 2007, 00:40
did you REALLY miss the gorilla? please. Just look at a flower. That is enough proof for creation.
 PBD  -  January 15, 2007, 00:42
*yawn* is he still talking?
 Zealiot  -  January 15, 2007, 00:48
pre - I'm very sorry to say it in this way, but you've obviously not read any of the things written by either me or PBD, if we somehow happend to be unclear then here you have at least 29 evidence for Evolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/) and if you still after you've read that link say that Evolution is a fraud or that Intelligent Design is science then you're just ignorant. Once again I'm really sorry, I'm not trying to destory anyones way of living but in this case you just simply have to wake up. Read the post, ask questions, look up info about Evolution, go to the libary for example, if you still won't accept it well then you're a lost "soul". - Zealiot
aero  -  January 15, 2007, 15:11
pre: why is a flower proof of creation? Why is anything proof of creation? If the flower were constructed otherwise you probably think *that* was a proof. If you could let your mind a bit further than the pages of your bible (a book) you might think that the reason you can admire a flower is simply because it is there. If it wasn't you wouldn't think about it, would you? Think about things that doesn't exist. Are you admiring them (oh yes, god and unicorns, I know)? I mean, a parallel to this is when someone gets the question: "Is there intelligent life in the Universe other than us?" and the respond goes: "Yes of course, why wouldn't it be? Why would it be only us? And we are probably not the smartest either!". Why not? Well, I think there are others out there, but I cannot *know*, but it *might* actually be that we are the only ones. We are here, we can think these questions, we *could* be the ones? Why does it *have* to be someone else? If we weren't here we wouldn't be able to think either, would we?
aero  -  January 15, 2007, 16:08
pre: why is a flower proof of creation? Why is anything proof of creation? If the flower were constructed otherwise you probably think *that* was a proof. If you could let your mind a bit further than the pages of your bible (a book) you might think that the reason you can admire a flower is simply because it is there. If it wasn't you wouldn't think about it, would you? Think about things that doesn't exist. Are you admiring them (oh yes, god and unicorns, I know)? I mean, a parallel to this is when someone gets the question: "Is there intelligent life in the Universe other than us?" and the respond goes: "Yes of course, why wouldn't it be? Why would it be only us? And we are probably not the smartest either!". Why not? Well, I think there are others out there, but I cannot *know*, but it *might* actually be that we are the only ones. We are here, we can think these questions, we *could* be the ones? Why does it *have* to be someone else? If we weren't here we wouldn't be able to think either, would we?
 pre  -  January 20, 2007, 09:37
i saw the gorilla the first time, yay me.
Chris (guest)  -  June 22, 2008, 07:27
The main problem most people have with evolution is that they assume that all of the history of creation leads up to us intentionally. We're complicated, sure, but do you really believe we are the end-all, be-all of everything? Are we really the pinnacle of creation? Could it be that we are just a fluke? We came about via a loooong, complicated process and now we just are. Our inflated sense of self-importance does not want to let us believe that we are not some sort of a mission accomplished. We are not an end product. We just are.

Name

Comment

Please enter the text below





5 random popular videos

75% funny
Fish attracted by light
Fish attracted by light

89% impressive
Skilled pen spinning
Skilled pen spinning

86% impressive
Dancing around the world
Dancing around the world

75% interesting
Cleanternet
Cleanternet

87% funny
Time Magazine - Person of the year
Time Magazine - Person of the year