Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

awesome time-lapse video

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by chrome, Oct 7, 2011.

  1. http://www.vimeo.com/29950141



    first time i've seen anything like this. Very cool.
     
     Top
  2. #2 blocka, Oct 7, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 24, 2015
    That's amazing
     
     Top
  3. That's pretty awesome, I wonder if it's possible to use as a screen saver.
     
     Top
  4. It's sad that there are billions of people in the world who would watch this and attribute its beauty and wonder to a fictitious character.

    Brilliant video, thanks for sharing.
     
     Top
  5. What he said. Utterly beautiful.

    Isn't it enough to have a lovely garden, without expecting it to have fairies at the bottom?
     
     Top
  6. Yes much more suitable to attribute beauty and wonder to complete random chance and a directionless lack of purpose. U mad?
    Is that really the best you can do? Not very accurate either... better way of putting it would be
    "Isn't it enough to have a lovely well-maintained garden, without expecting there to be a careful gardener?"

    I actually laughed when I heard Richard Dawkins use that line of yours in a debate with someone. He got beaten convincingly as well, that bloke is shocking when it comes to public debating. In fairness, Hitchens is much better
     
     Top
  7. anyway, enough of that useless misled slag clogging up this thread.

    I was expecting it to be about the Melanie Iglesias video that's going around at the moment. Look it up yourselves, you can thank me later.
     
     Top
  8. Wow, thats stunning. Thanks for sharing. Its not all that long ago that something like that could be put down to CG, but stuff like this now is down to amazing High Definition Camera technology, kinda makes you see the world in a whole new light doesnt it?

    That Big rock with the river running around it is where they filmed part of Planet of the Apes :p
     
     Top
  9. When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
     
     Top
  10. Sad maybe, not mad. And yes, when you can come to terms with the reality of the circumstances that have brought humans here today - then you will truly be in awe of your surroundings. To attribute all that we know (and all that we don't) to some magical supernatural being or force is the least intellectually possible 'answer' to anything. "Derrrr, god dun it." - Yeah, thanks Jack, you've really enlightened me. =\


    The original is from Douglas Adams, who was looked up to greatly by Dawkins and many millions of other people on the planet. I'd like to see this 'debate' too. I'd also like to see a debate about gravity, a debate about electricity and a debate about whether the sun revolves around the Earth. Debating evolution at this point in time is just as asinine as debating any other accepted area of science. Besides, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, he doesn't need to construct arguments to prove he's correct, he just uses evidence. It just happens that everyone he debates either doesn't know what evidence is, or chooses to ignore it.

    Also, Lilley, I haven't forgotten your promise to provide me some evidence for your beliefs. But it's ok, I never expected anything anyway.


    I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make. But as with almost everything in religion, it's fairly poetic, I will not deny. I will deny that there's any evidence to suggest that those words are an indication of the existence of a god or gods.
     
     Top
  11. This is some good stuff, really improved my life for today.
     
     Top
  12. #12 Ljiljan, Oct 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    Yeh mate, I completely have. Sorry about that. looking ahead I wont be able to do it anytime soon. Hold me to it though, I'll have some spare time by late dec/jan.

    "Besides, Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, he doesn't need to construct arguments to prove he's correct, he just uses evidence."

    He is many things. And he was arguing with philosophical arguments. I'll have a quick look to see if I can find it.
    edit: This one may be it or it may not: [media=youtube]F-S7M0KZTsU[/media]
     
     Top
  13. #13 thermal, Oct 8, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 13, 2015
    Don't worry, I'm sure I'll bring it up again. ;)

    And I have seen these videos, watching again now. Haven't seen the fairies bit yet, but when the host cuts off Dawkins when he was drilling the Muslim about the penalty for apostasy, it's clear that they aren't interested in allowing all the facts to be teased out. Though, that's pretty standard when it comes to religious debates - let people tout the 'goods' and brush the 'bads' aside.
     
     Top
  14. Sooo, just realised I gave you the wrong debate. Look up Fixed Point Foundation, they host all the big ones on the issue. Regarding Dawkins being cut off, that particular one was hosted by bbc so it would have been a more than fair presentation if BBC's standard position these days is anything to go by.

    Try this: http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate

    As I said, Hitchens is much better at debates than Dawkins is, and John Lennox is particularly excellent.
     
     Top
  15. I will have to say this again, that debating these things is asinine. It's like someone walking up to me with an orange and then starting a debate about what colour it is. Just because someone is bested in an argument, does not mean they are wrong.

    I'll go watch that video now, don't think I've actually seen this one.
     
     Top
  16. Sure, but it doesn't mean they are right either. And you might as well extend that reasoning to any debates. The point of these debates is to provide a clear presentation on what each has to offer and not a whole lot more. In all honesty I do agree, I really don't like have debate-like discussions with people because they never result in anything. That's why I will often avoid them here, at most only making a couple of comments.

    I enjoy watching them though. Seeing to very good debaters with an interesting topic is always time well spent.
     
     Top
  17. Clearly :LOL:






    *Jokes*
     
     Top
  18. Regarding the OP, it's pretty crazy to see just how many satellites there are orbiting the planet. On any given night of careful watching spent in countryside I rarely see any more than 5.
     
     Top
  19. Well, having now watched the source - I completely disagree with your assessment. Not only did he not use that line (his opponent brought it up) he actually countered with a very reasonable explanation about the quote. I've seen Lennox in a couple of other videos and the guy is not even a good debater. He likes to play little word games, talk in circles (well, not that he has much choice when talking about god) and looks for laughs from the audience. I will admit that Dawkins isn't a very good debater either, but at least he makes an effort to make his point as concise and on topic as possible. There was even a point where he stopped for about 5 seconds to contemplate his words. Too many people see this as a weakness, when it is one of the sure signs that a person actually thinks about what they're saying.


    Well, no shit - in any truth statement one is either correct or incorrect... I'm saying that being beaten in an argument is not tantamount to being wrong. Yes, the 'loser' could have been beaten and also have been wrong, but one does not indicate the other. And I completely extend this reasoning to every single debate ever staged anywhere in the world at any time of history. Is that inclusive enough? Regardless of who 'wins' a debate, the truth never changed based on what was said.

    I assume you are a big fan of William Lane Craig? Perfect example of someone who knows how to play to the rules of a debate and completely leave facts and evidence far behind in the distance.

    I don't mind watching debates, as it helps me form useful arguments. But ultimately they're a waste of time when held in the standard debate format of 'Peson A will speak for x minutes, then Person B.' etc. Outside of investigative science, conversation is the only useful tool we have so far that can be used to search for objective truths.
     
     Top
  20. Never heard the name until now.

    I don't mind watching debates, as it helps me form useful arguments. But ultimately they're a waste of time when held in the standard debate format of 'Peson A will speak for x minutes, then Person B.' etc. Outside of investigative science, conversation is the only useful tool we have so far that can be used to search for objective truths.

    very true.
     
     Top