They're only animals, I don't think they even feel pain or anything, but animals are inferior to us. You're supporting it? Yeah. Wait, do you buy it?  Yeah. You support it too, with your money. Thanks. Thanks for that. What you are doing is hurting them. You are putting them up as the enemy. Right? You won't continue to eat them. We think that animals are here to be eaten and we think the gas chamber is the best method. Sign our petition? Hey mate. What are you actually doing here? What's your problem buddy? What's yours? What's the petition? May I ask? You want to know? Yeah. We've got a petition to stop vegans from closing down gas chambers. We're trying to keep these operating so people can still have bacon. Yeah, do you want to sign? Seems a very odd thing to be doing. Get them to sign up, don't you think? Well, you support it anyway when you buy bacon, so we're just seeing if people will sign the petition. How do you know I buy bacon? How do you know I'm not vegan? Well, I said it was a hypothetical. It was like a rhetorical thing. People support it anyway when they buy bacon. This is a joke. You've got someone there filming. Why are you getting upset, my friend?  It's not a real petition. Why are you getting upset? It's not a real petition. That's why I'm getting upset. Well, how does it affect you, mate?  How does it affect you, mate? How does it affect you? Because twice now I've seen a f*** wit today. Alright, well why don't you just calm down and back off for a sec buddy, eh? Right? So it's a fake petition. How does it affect you, mate?  Don't come at anyone's space all aggressive, alright? I'm trying to do something here. F*** f***. It's a fake human meat thing. I just want to commend you on your good work, buddy. Sorry. I want to commend you on your good work. Oh, how you going, mate? It's not bad. Dominic. I didn't know you were an Adelaide. Oh, really? No, I'm back in Adelaide, mate. You're well, you're good. Yeah, I'm not too bad. Good to see you out here, man. He threatened my camera around before as well. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're the craziest. I think the tube might be on this weekend, but I'm not sure. Oh, cool. Would you be there? No, no, no. We're only here temporarily, dude. I'm actually leaving tomorrow. Really? Yeah, yeah. Good to see you here, alright? No worries, Dominic. Sorry about that, mate. I'm used to that sh**. Yeah, yeah, I just don't like people. I've been doing this for 10 years. What, you've been doing activism and things like that? I'll be veganism. My 10th anniversary will be in December, actually. 10 years. I'm two years behind you, mate. It should do so much great work, so, you know, keep it up, man. See, the idea is we're trying to get people to support the gas chambers in there, so no way I'm supporting that. This guy had come up to you before. Yeah, he'd come up and got it aggressive with my camera man before as well. I love the way you had it yourself. I wouldn't get in your bed, so I don't know your history. Yeah, I know. You're a good man. Cheers, brother. Alright, stay safe. No worries, mate. Stay warm. Keep up the good fight, man. No worries, brother. Good to meet you, Dominic. See you around, man. Take care, bro. It's interesting. Not many people actually want to, like, sign a petition to support the baking industry. They actually think, why would you want to support that? But they do. They support it with their money, so they wouldn't sign a petition to support it, but they'll pay the store, pay the slaughterhouse, and pay the factory farm to support it. Sorry, mate. Sorry, but I didn't hear you. What'd I say? How did I threaten you?   Sorry, mate. Did I threaten you? Did I come up to you and start waving hands in your face before, like you did? Yes. Did I? Did I? Yes. I don't remember that. We filmed everything, bro. We know exactly what you did. You come into my space. You got all aggressive. You raised your hands to me. What do you want from me? Do you want me to just go, oh, sorry, mate.  Nor can you. Not everyone can cop it. Nor can you. Oh, what? What are you going to do? I'm not scared of you. I don't care. You're coming back. You're walking up to me, bro. We filmed everything, dude.  Do this and that. Like, you know, so whatever. Yeah, do it. Yeah. So I still have a question. If you have a problem, if you have a problem, call the police. See, get them to deal with it, dude. No, no, no. Okay. Are you a vegan, are you? Are you a vegan? And not just a performer.  How long have you been vegan? Longer than you. How long have you been vegan? Nine years. Nine years. Oh, really? Okay. What made you go vegan? I don't want to hurt animals. You don't want to hurt animals? What you are doing is hurting them. You are putting them up as the enemy. Right. You won't convince anybody right here. Oh, really? Do you don't think I've convinced anyone? You don't think I've convinced anyone? No. All right. Interesting. Interesting. Interesting. Where do you? F***ing self-粘 peat- I've got about 10,000 sign-ups to challenge 22. 10,000. Well, so you've got a real petition. 10,000 sign-ups to challenge 22. To turn people vegan. I've got about 10,000 sign-ups to challenge 22. 10,000? Well, so you've got a real petition. 10,000 sign-ups to challenge 22. So that's 10,000. How many have you got? How many people have converted to veganism? How many people have you converted to veganism? Oh, well I've got thousands. Thousands and thousands. Bullsh**t, you've got thousands. Thousands? I don't know. You have to ask him. Why? You put the animals up at the end of it. How?  No, they won't. They'll see a gas chamber and realise they shouldn't be supporting it. If you claim you went vegan because you didn't want to hurt animals, shouldn't we be showing people what they support? How are they supposed to, how are you supposed to realise awareness? Without showing people what they support. These cameras come in from inside slaughterhouses that people pay for. Okay, so you know because someone showed you. Yes. But you think that's the wrong way. You know because someone showed you. So what am I doing? So what am I showing? Oh, what am I doing? I'm showing people. I'm raising awareness. You wouldn't have known unless someone showed you. Yeah? So how is that wrong? So you only learned that meat comes from animals from watching that video? We're all taught that it's children. No, no, no. We're all taught. We're taught it's humane. It's chicken. We're taught it's humane. We're taught they don't suffer. We're taught they don't feel pain. We're taught they just meat. No one shows kids the process. So don't tell me you saw that when you were a kid. I grew up on a farm. Huh? I grew up on a farm. So don't tell me you didn't see it. Okay, well whatever. Well that kid there didn't see it, did they? That kid there didn't see it. That kid there didn't see it. That kid there didn't see it. But when you rise awareness, you show people what's going on, then they become educated and they stop supporting it. So you show me a better way. How are people supposed to see inside of a slaughterhouse and realize that it's wrong? What are you doing to help the animals? Except coming up and attacking me? What did you do today to help the animals? I'm not discussing all that. What did you do today to help the animals? Except come up and attack me? And my cameraman? Today? And be aggressive? So you're only judging it by what's been done today? No, no. You're judging it out on the animal abuse industry. It's not me. How do you know anything about what I do? You showed me just then. You proved it to me. You come up and got aggressive with an activist when you should be on the side of the animals against the industry. Not me. I'm not part of the f**king industry.  I think you're talking s**t.  Okay? But why don't you try and go help the animals in your own way?  Nothing.  No, I'm promoting veganism or some description. Oh really? And unless we get that, like, I'm pepscryterians, you know, halfway there. You're nearly there. I'm at my old fauna. You want to support gas chambers? As in support humane gas chambers, yes. Yeah, that's these? Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. So we're just, we're trying to get people, they're trying to shut these down, but we want to keep them operating. So they're humane? Well, this is the thing. The vegans think they're not, but we think they are. I'm not, I'm not overly familiar. I might actually look it up. I'll look it up before I come back, but I'll work, I'll work this up and wait. This is all bacon, this is where you get your bacon from. Gas chambers. Oh, more than familiar with bacon. Come back in a sec. We've got gas chambers here. Oh, about that week's mast on in the garden. Oh yeah? They were looking at how they slaughtered it, and people went to in vegetarian. Oh really? You wouldn't know? No, I mean, I know what it's like for the poor animals there. Would you sign a petition to keep these open? These gas chambers open? More. Really, because I'm in a hurry to get somewhere. Oh yeah? Alright. Next time I'll do it. Oh, yeah, okay. The vegans are trying to get these shut down here. This is how we get our bacon, and it's causing a threat to the bacon industry. They just want to get rid of, well, I think these vegans have a bit of an agenda. They don't like animals being slaughtered. But we think it's humane, and we're just being, the vegans got this footage here in order to try to shut us down, but we think that animals are here to be eaten, and so we think the gas chamber is the best method. It burns their eyes a bit, and they suffocate for a little while, but they're out pretty quick. What do you think about gas chambers? They're in Australia. There's one at Murray Bridge. Most bacon comes out of these places, so why's that? What makes you say that? It's just the way you sell it. Well, I'm not selling it to you very well. No, no, wait. You wouldn't support it? Unless I would have looked into it. But do you buy pork? No, I'm a vegan.  Yeah, I'm vegan myself, but it holds reasons, not the vegan reasons. I think what they're doing is crazy, because there's an actual good argument. It's to help you die. It's a reverse disease. Oh, yeah, yeah. We need to go, oh! Because this is happening. Because animals are being slaughtered, and people are eating meat. We need to stop it all together, and toly and the earth, blah, blah, blah. You don't think we should... It's a better argument. What's a better argument? A better argument is healthy for you, and you shouldn't consume pork until you begin with. What about people that don't care about their health? Go for it. What about people that care about animals? And we tell them, this is what's happening to them. I think that Australia has pretty good standards. This is out of Australia. Do you think that's good? This footage is out of Australia. What, are you for or against the gassing? Is this the gassing or...? Yeah, I'm actually trying to guide and support for gas chambers as a reverse psychology social experiment to see if people will actually want to support what they buy. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Because I had a taxi driver there going, I want them to get rid of them. And I'm like, no, I'm trying to guide and support for the gas chambers because if you're paying for pork, your support needs with your money anyway. Yeah. And he thought it was wrong. Well, the alternative is to have them...  They're smarter than dogs. Yeah. And they're watching their friends if ahead of them having their throat slit. So it's a horrible thing. So how... How else... Yeah, well, like... Nothing else. Well, like what you're doing. Yeah, not eating at the big end where that's a good start. Yeah, that's all right. But if you want to consume it... Yeah, but like, there's no rule. This is the most humane method. This is the most humane method for pigs, the gas chamber. RSPCA used to actually endorse it. Yeah. Until activists left cameras in there. This is what you're seeing. So you agree with this? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. I'm tricking people into believing that I'm garnering support because I want to see how they react for someone to say, hey, support these gas chambers. Vegans are trying to shut them down. If they go, no, they should be shut down. I'll say we'll stop supporting it with your dollar then. Yeah, I was actually not going to support you. I don't agree with any... Like, let's just say you're the victim. Yeah. Okay. And we were discussing what method we should slaughter you. Yeah. All right. And then there's a vegan coming in and I wish I were to be on. Well, you're the victim now. You'd be on... I'd be protecting your rights. I wouldn't be saying, oh, make him suffer less. I mean, that would be good. If you had two options, suffer less, or just be knocked straight there on the spot. I'd go knock him on the spot. But then we have this other alternative, which is lead animals alone, stop mass breeding them and exploiting them and murdering them. It would be ideal. The production's only increasing. Population's increasing. Yeah, that's 8 billion people. Yeah, so they're going to cut corners. Factory farming like this is becoming more common. Well, it's the most common. It's over 90% of pigs are factory farmed in Australia. They're going to get producing more. It's going to get more horrible. But luckily you don't support it anyway. No, no. It's all... Well, I don't even eat turkey bacon. I'll pay for this cut. Yeah, it is. So, yeah. Beans, legumes. Keep going mate. Thank you, mate. Thank you. Hey, mate. What was that you were doing? Just showing people what happens to pigs in the gas chambers. Oh. Yeah, did you know pigs were killed in gas chambers? Nah, I thought that. Nah, well, gas chambers, they can stick more in there. And then they kill more of them more efficiently.  Goes down into the gas. What is to stop doing it? We want to stop it. We want us people to stop eating pigs, using animals. We think it's wrong. We'll go vegetarian. Vegan. Vegan. Vegan, yeah. Yeah, you don't want to? Nah. You can get some pretty good stuff that's vegan. Get good vegan burgers, vegan ice cream, vegan hot dogs, vegan...  I don't know. But if you're against animal cruelty, that's all vegan means you're against animal cruelty. And you don't support it. I'm lucky. If they get a feed...  Yeah. Do you want me to buy you a feed? Nah. Are you sure? Alright. No worries, brother. Take care.


Felly, ymddir, mae'n cyfrannu o'r cyfrannu. Yn ei ddweud o'r projekty, mae'n angen i'r Llaedd Dysgol Ffraenwyr, UCD wedi'u cyfnod y peth yn yng Nghymru yng Nghymru, a mae'r ddweud fydd ymlaen o'r llwyffydd. Mae'n ddechrau ein ddod o'r ddod, a mae'n ddod o'r ddod. Ac yna'n gwybod yma'n ymlaen yng nghymru a'r ddod o'r ddod o'r closder. Mae'n gwybod ymlaen o'r ddod o'r closder. Mae'n ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod. Mae'n ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r closDERhWR yng Nghymru, a mae'n ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r closDERhWR yng Nghymru, a mae'n gwaith rydw i ni'n ddod o'r ddod o'r ddod o'r closERhWR. Mae'n amser am y maen nhw i gwybod ymlaen o'r ddod i fynd i'u ddod o'r clos 말�. Mae geisio ar gyfer ei weithio'r ddod oed. Dw i'n gwneud gan fy ffordd a wneud, dim oed o'n gwneud, a dyma'n gwneud i ddim yn ei gwybod. Ychydig yw'r cestur i'w? Rwy'n meddwl, rydyn ni'n ei gyd, yna oedd yn ymryd i ti'r ystod y Nesafol, ac rwy'n meddwl gweithio'n gweithio'r gweithio'n dwy'r gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. Felly roedden nhw'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. Felly mae gennym eu gweithio'r cestur i'r 5 ymgyrch yn gyfnod, O'r marina o'r bydd hyn sy'n gwneud cychwynol pan dwylau mawr y dweud rhagoriaeth a gyfer ar ddweud y mawr, yn ddigwysd y bydd Ydw'n YsgrifennuOhol. O'r gyflau adnod, mae'r ddaeth gennych Cog feddwl, neu adnod gweithio hynny yw'r gymwyslwyr mewn cyllid yn ymgymrydau i'r grannu bobl a'r gwerthfawr, rwy'n cael ei ddweud hynny, pan fynd â gennych ysgol arddangos, sy'n gwaith a'r gweithfawr. for resource-able learning objects for postgraduate virtual programme. In Trinity, they took a learning through reflection. But it was for an engineering programme, so there's a real innovation there in terms of reflection engineering don't always go together, though they have done this project, they should do. In IDT, we are running, we ran this year for the second time, for the first time for 400 students, we're being 2,500, so to run up a module for 400 students is pretty unique for us, so it was an interdisciplinary transition to college. ac ydy'r NCD wedi'u gwneud o'r dweud ein cyfnodau am ysgolwyr yng ngyfgrifenni yw'r leisio. Ac mae'r ystafell cyfnodau cyfnodau a ddefnyddio'r ddechrau gyda'r ddweud gyda'r ddefnyddio. Ac mae'n gilydd. Mae'n ymdaeth y sgolwyr cyfrifennu gwneud. Mae'n ymddangos yn gwybod gan ymdyn nhw, maen nhw'n ffordd i gael ei bod yn ei ddweud, ond mae'n gwybod i'n ymdyn nhw. Ac y gallwch chi fod yn dda i sydd i'n ddaluniaid gyda'r bobl, i chi'n ddweud. fel y cyntaf a'r byd, ac ond, mae'n ddysgu'r dweud, ac yn nodi'r ddweud y hoffiktur hefyd, ond yn gyntaf amadd tego. Rwy'n ddweud i gyd, ac mae'r ddweud i fyny i'r peth ar gyfer, a'r fan o syddi'r cyffredin. Rydym ni'n gweithio i gyd yn gyd. Mae wedi gyddoch chi'n ddych chi'n gweithio i gyddoch chi'n gweithio i gyddoch chi'n gweithio ond all that. So, let's look at them. For three of the case studies, we have digital outputs for the other case studies that the work is still in progress. So, I just want to show you as we were asked to. I have the snappy open. Sorry, here it is. So, here's just a snappy. This is a little video. I'm just going to give you a clip of it. Give it a place. Didn't check if it plays. This is an articulate. And looking at there, which is the statement. So, the idea is the vet school in UCD are developing these and they're developing them for a range of that. This is one that has been developed, but more have been developed. This is the chronic wound assessment. I'm going to play a minute or so of that if that. I'll start over. My name is Catherine Redmond and I am a lecturer in the School of Nursing, Midwfrey and Health Systems in UCD. I am presenting this session which is focused on providing guidance to nurses on the assessment and dressing of chronic wounds. The skill of aseptic technique. These have been prepared earlier in the year, but they're being revised and developed further and their value being assessed and looked at in terms of that. We have from Trinity an animation on reflection. Again, I'm just going to play a little bit of it. That statement has two parts to it. Reflective and learning. It might be more accurate to turn that statement around, so it reads learning through reflection. So what is reflection and why is it relevant? One of the interesting things about this one is it was developed in response to a need in engineering, but actually it's a sort of standalone reflection video that can, that animation that can be used with any discipline. So it's a resource that was developed for a specific discipline that can be used widely across the, and indeed across the partner institutions and looking at that. So just to flick through these. This is Second Life. This is the art gallery that was developed in Second Life by the lecturer in Merino and it was enabled the students to explore different aspects of visual art and these are primary teacher educators. We are not opening it because just by the time we open Second Life and all of that, that UCD. So there's just an image from the small Amazon medicine. There's the Croucman acceptance. Trinity was reflection. IEDT, I've mentioned there, just want to show. What we did in IEDT was we found we were focusing on the identity and well-being of aspect of the older board and looking at our students online identity, the digital footprints and how they transitioned into college. Here are some digital artifacts they produced as part of the module there. And this is one of my colleagues has taken the older board framework and said, well, from a transition into college point of view, these are the aspects that we should be focusing on online communication, social work, networking. So again, the older board framework has been interpreted and developed as part of this project and I think, and I sent, I think owned by all of us. And then some digital skills in old spaces from NCAD and revising room plans and looking at that. So what are the key outcomes? Well, let's just go to the project outcomes here. We had five dedicated local tell days, 21 independent presentations and workshops including two conference presentations. We presented at ed tech 2016 two weeks ago. There was 157 participants across five institutions who actually went to the tell days. 25 individual resources developed and they're all should be all in the course sites. We have to check that 10 hours and over 690 students exposed to new resources. And those are resources in a sense in this academic year with the similar number being exposed in the next academic year because the modules and the work that we're doing that they're continuing and looking at that. What are the next steps of the project? Because one of the things that that's actually, I'll look at that. One of the things that we don't, you know, we've started the work, the work is in progress. So in Merino they're going to look at create digital learning objects and for offline use. In UCD it's stylesheets and prominent pathways. In the second project, the VET, when it's developing the original template, but it's actually developing the snappies as part of a student staff partnership. So the students will be developing the snappies as well. And so you get, if you like, what you call the double whamming in terms of learning. IDT, we're, oh sorry, Trinity further developed the case study resources and expand the focus on reflection and run reflection workshops for right across the college. So to embed reflection as a tool into undergraduate education. IDT, what we want to do out of our project is develop a digital toolkit, simple short videos for students about basic skills, because we found it very interesting about what skills the students, the digital skills the student had on entry into college. And then in NCAD, it's workshops of staff in screencasting and devised blended learning resources. There are next steps, that kind of thing. So project evaluation, I'm going to slow down a little bit. I think I'm okay for time, but I'll talk too fast. So project evaluation on the proposal, we said we'd focus on the all aboard framework case studies, develop resource present to the tell week and evaluate. Find a course like any projects, it didn't work, because the order was wrong. The tell week came in March. We got funding in January, so we sorted our case studies and we started work in January. From January to March things. So we did our tell week and we put our tell week. But in terms of resource development, it's happened a lot after the tell week and is still ongoing. The project implementation, the collaborative process, we've had regular meetings here. We've worked, I think we've dealt as a group. And I'm stepping out of it, the focus that. Develop the case studies. I think that has taken much longer. In my case, I got absolutely caught on ethics. I'm the head of department. I manage staff on the module. I manage the students. So when we check the ethics form, it's borderline. So we actually had to go through a very rigorous ethic problem because I'm the head of department because of the risks to students. So that took much longer than we anticipated just to do it. And that kind of thing. We represented that. So we developed the case studies and developed the resources. The staff development for tell and right across the institutions, we're now in that stage of staff development. In each of the institutions, the staff development was different depending on what they were. One of the things that came out of IEDT is that staff needed training and excel. To manage 400 students, we had to use a spreadsheet and the staff were saying, well, I did the spreadsheet this year. I think who's going to do it next year. So it is about, so that's one of the things in Merino. It was screencasting. David, in usage. Assessment issues. Assessment issues. Yeah, go animation. So it's about to teach staff how to develop these kind of resources. Right, and no load. So we're looking at staff development and we're trying to, at the moment, evaluate the impact and the sustainability. As you know, not easy. If we were to have a tell week in 2017, future integration, what we would do, the collaborative process would be maintained and that the financial trigger has been essential. It provided the reason for us to apply for the funding with focus. We'd seek the case studies earlier and develop them. We had almost arrived here in November with our case studies sort of, but we didn't start until January. So here we are in June with work started in January and look at that. Promote the tell week in advance. You know, this has felt like a little bit like a hamster on a wheel in terms of getting the project done. I think we're happy with what we've done. Undertake a little bit more comparative analysis and support the ongoing development of resources and look at what, how the resources developed this year are actually being used. Because one of the things that happened, and I've argued this for how many years, the issue at times isn't resources. The issue at times is using the resources in a routine everyday way as part of my teaching. That's the key thing. That a lecturer just automatically uses this screencast or that thing or this tool and just does it and doesn't even think about it. Then we've won because then it's sort of just think I'll make a screencast of this. Oh yeah, here it is and we won and that's what we would focus on there. The local and national input backed, we're asked for that. Well, the collaborative projects, the trigger, which is the national forum call on the seed funding, very much the green light there and these colours are chosen with with intent shall we say at the seed funding. So that really was a green light. It got us going, it got us together. At the implementation, the time in the short term mid-term effect, we just had to get the project done so it was faster to eat both and get it done. We're here to say we've done it. The scale and the local logistics, that's always the issue and will always be issue because we're all doing this on top of our other jobs. So it's getting the staff together. I had a fantastic group in IDT who worked with me on that. But in other institutions it isn't. The scale of the institutions, although we're different sizes, that when we compare the technology enhanceers earning resources across the different institutions, it's about the same and it's probably 0.25 person. If you're a pro-rata, so we're doing that. The infrastructure, you've got to look at that. So future developments, the sustainable co-operation and that, the shared resources, looking at that and looking at that. Now IDT is never going to use the wounds with all due respects David, but charity might because they have that. So it's about sharing where we have a look at that. And then the shared cognition, that is about our own understanding about digital skills, our own understanding of the all aboard framework. And actually what I'm just saying it to the group earlier, what really struck me is that all aboard has just become part of our toolkit. We just look at it and I was in another institution that didn't use it. So Sarah is telling me to move on. Some points about cross-central group learning, some central group issues, again red, amber and green for reasons. There's the all aboard reference. Our social media presence and questions.


So within this video guys, I showcased the five moments so far I have had those beautiful legendary weapons drop which were a part of my live streams just in case you missed them. Now legendaries within this game are for the most part super rare with me farming somewhat 15 hours before getting one drop and yes that's 15 hours of killing a boss over and over and because the legendary weapons in this game are so unique and look for the most part incredible it does get that blood pumping.


All right, what's going on everybody? This is a 4-box half case break random teams of Gala football. We have first to do early bird spot giveaway So we're gonna roll the dice all three randomizers One of the first 16 spots bought in this one and you get entered to win a free spot So all three randomizers after nine times four and a five Here are the first 16 names after nine times the top name will get a free spot in this one Ninth and final times Joshua Kay wins it. There you go after nine times For 16 after nine, so let me put you here where early bird spot goes and now that a customer names nine times one two three four five six seven eight and nine Scott Jay down to Matthew V and now for the list of NFL teams nine times one two three four five six seven eight Ninth and final nine times Patriots down to the Giants So here you go Scott Jay Patriots Rex Lyons Jeremy Steelers Mac Cardinals Oliver Browns Joshua K Chargers Joshua H. Jags Joshua K Vikings Colin Chiefs Mac Titans Donnie Eagles Jeremy Anderson Rams Jeremy L Colts Victor Dolphins Ryan Bucks James Bills Chad Broncos Andy Redskins Colin Saints Fred 49er Jeremy Bears Joshua Seahawks Marty Texans Barry Packers Joshua Ravens Jacob Panthers Karen Cowboys Anthony Raiders Tyler Jets Anthony Falcons Jeremy Bengals and Matthew V Giants So let's open up the case see which half we're doing for this break So go left side one two three right side four five six I Saw a Mookie Betz Dodger Jersey for the first time out in the wild today. I honestly yeah, I don't think I Don't think they'll resign So that was kind of an awkward purchase for that person But maybe he does all right one two three left side four five six right side I feel like jerseys you got to wait at least a year or at least the players got assigned like a long-term deal six right side boxes So these will be for a break To can't really see it anyway, but I'll see some pens. All right trade window closed. Good luck everybody Put out the list and rip it Company up next is the cup hockey and then we got clearly authentic To end our night you got the Lions Rex Detroit motor city Detroit Rock City All good. Good luck. Here we go Next half is in the store can break it when it sells out This is I think the only year they ever did gala football is 2016. I kind of like it It's a nice. I think this is a base. Yeah a nice some kind of La product a lot about you know gala and Movies and stuff like that kind of the set is built around that 42 49 Peyton Manning The base cards look cool too Broncos. That is Chad B. We have a Derek Henry Coming attractions Jersey 46 out of 49 for the Titans that's going out to Mac auto cinematic signatures That is Josh Docs Have a decoy here. Yeah, these are kind of cool. You can see like the film strip kind of looking there 60 of 99 that's Andy Phelps Next we got a Vernon Hargraves the third number to 99 for the bucks Going out to Ryan C. Another film strip Card there and we have an on card Silver screen signatures that is 8 of 25 Giovanni Bernhard Bangles that's going out to Jeremy C box to yeah, no problem Thanks for getting in Mac That's a rookie Derek Henry to 33 of 49 Matthew Stafford for the Lions. That's going out to Rex base 33 of 49 Nice patch here numbered 15 to 25 Kenyon Drake dolphins edition four color patch it's going out to Miami and Victor the redemption will save anyone want to guess for a little ten dollars and break credit in the chat Only one guess and yet to be the first person to guess that name. If not, you can guess again TJ Elton 25 out of 49 action autographs remember this is 2016 product Jaguars that's going out to Joshua And I thought this guy was gonna be a stud when he came to the Eagles Titans 53 of 99 Doreal Green Beckham another one for Mac silver screen signatures Redemption time. All right for ten dollars and break credit. Good luck 2016 gala cinematic rookie signatures. It's a rookie 2016 It is card 17. It is Ezekiel Elliott Nice Believe the first person on my screen to do it to guess that I don't think anyone else gets it actually Jeremy L. There you go. I'll send you that break credit. Cowboys Karen. Also, it's also a really nice hit Karen There you go. Cowboys Karen steel got the Cowboys randomized in the random team. It's a nice Zeke So their panini policy for redemptions is that you type in the code once you get the card If they have this card Whatever, this is number two. I think probably out of 49 or 99 They'll give it to you. If not, they'll I think replace it with panini points Yeah, I think Jeremy is right. I guess some people guess check out Okay, Rex There's a 28 out of 49 Buffalo Bills Andre Reed James teal of the bills There's Devonta Freeman main attractions rally 43 out of 49. It's a fun break for you know 29 99 Anthony P Braxton Miller Silver screen signatures going out to the Houston Texans 84 of 99 Marty Brandon Allen for the Jaguars 2799 Jacksonville going up to Joshua and we have a Silver screen signatures 39 of 99 Ed two tall Jones another hit for Karen with the Cowboys All right, find a box and Jason from the clouds. Just dunking right on Rex 3749 dangerous I think they're gonna be a Russell's movie although I guess his personality isn't like Craziest but dangerous would be a good movie title Seahawks is Joshua. Hey, here's another Derek Henry 9 of 25 To color Ricky patch That's for Mac with the Titans first-ever break Congrats very nice There's silver screen signatures Leante Karoo 20 of 25 for the Miami Dolphins That's Victor Silver screen signatures Couple more here. We got a Thomas Rawl 77 of 99 Seahawks That's Joshua Kay, and we have a 41 out of 99 David Cobb For the Tennessee Titans and Mac. There you go another hit So thanks everybody for getting in that was gala football four box half case break number one random team sold out on Jaspies case breaks calm Thanks, everybody peace out


G'day and welcome to the net network. My name is Dan. Thanks for watching. Today. I want to have a chat to you about Adobe Creative Cloud. I've been a customer now for two months So I'm in a fair position to be able to review it for you. So today, I'm going to give you my top five Best things about being a creative cloud customer Number one is trying out the new apps. It's lots of fun Trying out things that you may have not necessarily Had a chance to try out before because you couldn't afford them or because like me I bought the creatives sweet and it didn't come with things like our premiere pro and And things like that So I got to try all that out and why I'm on that the second one was edge The edge animate software. I've gotten a lot out of that I think it's brilliant software if you've ever used flash pro before you'll be fine in edge It's a great bit of software. It's got a lot of Seussayers out there people that don't like it. I don't like the way the bits are broken up into different software and a Few people, you know a bit narky about, you know only working across, you know, very modern browsers But if you're working with mobile, you're gonna love this app Number three is instant updates. You get everything once it's updated You'd like on that pops up in your menu bar if that's the way you've got it set up and you get the update straight away So any bug fixes or any new features they've been working on you're gonna get them for your membership every month The fourth thing that I really like about it and I say this with trepidation and I encourage you to watch The second video in this series, which is the worst things about being a creative cloud customer but the fourth thing that I like about being a creative cloud customer is The cloud storage and the sharing options that that offers so I can upload a PSD and share it with someone that doesn't have Photoshop and they can see it Fine and when the cloud actually comes back online That'll be excellent because I'll be able to save The PSDs into a local folder and it will just automatically update the file In the cloud but at the moment, that's not working. Please watch my next video The fifth best thing about being a creative cloud customer is the cooler options So it goes back to the last one when you share on Share a PSD or a PDF or a PNG or an image file basically on Creative cloud a little cooler bar pops up and it basically gives you a color palette of what you of the image That you're displaying or sharing and that's brilliant. I can't say how much I love that And I can't really put my finger on I haven't put it into practical application yet But I'm sure I will I just really like it there. Anyway, that's the best things about being a creative cloud customer Please watch the next video if you've got something out of this Which is the worst things about being a creative cloud customer. This has been the network. My name's Dan We'll see you soon


So JJ, if I were a Twitter troll, I would see Jalen Waddell and say, okay, he's the next Henry Ruggs, okay, he's the next John Ross, convince me that's not the case with Jalen Waddell. Yeah, you gotta give Waddell's production profile a lot of context. You know, before Jalen Waddell's injury in 2020, he had 557 receiving yards, Davante Smith, his teammate who won the Heisman had 483. Waddell's best season came as a freshman and as a freshman, he finished ahead of Henry Ruggs and Davante Smith in receiving yards and neither of them were freshmen.  He's immediately going to be a deep threat. And I don't get Henry Ruggs vibes from Jalen Waddell because of the production profile being somewhat similar, despite the injury last year, because that production profile is actually better for Jalen Waddell, even though he had that injury. So to me, he's more of a mix of Henry Ruggs because of that deep probability. But I know that a lot of people see this too, that he has a ceiling that's sort of like Tyree Kill and the way that the chiefs use Tyree Kill. So to me, Jalen Waddell, great prospect, top five wide receiver in this class, despite not having a great analytical profile.


Welcome back everybody, welcome back. Find your seats please, find your seats, here we go. Coming up next we have Jerry Coyne is going to do our next presentation. Faith is not a virtue, the incompatibility of science and religion. He's a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. He contributes to the New Republic and he has a fantastic book called Why Evolution is True. It's of course on sale at the bookstore here as our pretty much every speaker's book. So why evolution is true is really killer. His, oh by the way, were there fortune cookies at lunch? Is that true? That's awesome, that's awesome. Love it. Okay, here's the haiku. Science, religion, incompatibility, Ask Galileo. Please welcome Jerry Coyne. Thanks a lot. It's muttered darkly in certain corners of the internet that the JREF tries to avoid religion as among other forms of skepticism. Since I've been here I've seen that dispelled, but I want to add my own bit to it today by talking a little bit about the subject of the book I'm writing now, which is the incompatibility of science and religion, i.e. faith is not a virtue, which typifies that kind of dichotomy. When I talked to DJ about what my topic should be for this meeting, he suggested that I talk about evolution because he said nobody gets tired of evolution. And I responded, well I do, because I've done it for 40 years and I've talked about it and I have a book on it already. So I really wanted to kind of illuminate that and talk about the stuff I was interested in, which is the compatibility of science and religion. And I realized when I decided to do that, that this really does bear on everything that the JREF talks about. Because the incompatibility of science and religion depends critically on the difference between faith and having good reasons for what you believe. And that's the basis for all of the paranormal, psychic, and pseudo phenomena that this foundation has spent its time investigating. And in fact religion is the worst of all these phenomena. If you put religion up against Bigfoot in terms of its harmful effects on society, religion is going to be worse by a thousand-fold. So I don't feel so bad about talking about this today. Oops, sorry. So the fight, okay. Oh, make sure. Last October I debated a theologian, a Lutheran theologian at Charleston, South Carolina on the topic of the relationship between science and religion. And we were each asked to make one statement that summarized our position. And the theologian from Chicago, Dr. Leah Schweitz, said this, faith is a precious gift. And when she said that I suddenly realized, well this is the whole difference between science and religion because in science faith is not a poison gift. It's what Christopher Hitchens called a precious gift. It's what Christopher Hitchens called a poison chalice. It's the inimical thing to science. We want to avoid faith at all possible. And by faith, I'm going to use the definition, I mean Mark Twain's definition is faith is believed in what you know ain't so. But I'll use a little bit more sophisticated definition from the philosopher Walter Kaufman, intense, confident belief that is not based on evidence, sufficient to command ascent from every reasonable person, i.e. faith is believing in things for which there's no good evidence, no evidence, or counter evidence. So the fakers that I'm going to be fighting are not the big footers, the UFOs, the homeopass. It's what I call accommodationists. It's the people who claim that religion and science have this comity, that they go together hand in hand. They're not opposed to each other at all, but they're sort of partners in fighting out the truth about the universe. Religion finds some truth, science finds the other. Together we can find out everything. And that's just blatant fakery, in my point of view. Because, well, it is. If you keep it playing, you won't be able to get finished on time. But I don't think religion has actually found out anything in the 20,000 years it's been going, and I'll point that out to you later. So the fakers I'm going after are what I call the accommodationists, those people who believe in this comity between science and faith. They include the theologians, what I call faithiest, atheists who are nevertheless friendly towards religion. Religion-friendly scientists and science-friendly religionists. And believe me, although I saw somebody on the internet say, coin stock is beating a dead horse, this is a very live horse in the world today. The relationship between science and religion. I looked up over the past 113 years, since 1900, the number of books that have been published on the topic of the relationship between science and religion. And you can see it just goes up exponentially, with 15,500 in the last 30 odd years. That's, by the way, that's a book every 1.1 days. So they're being churned out, and almost all of these books are books that say science and religion are friends and should be buddies and certainly are not at odds with each other. The ultimate cultural imprimatur on this friendship between science and faith is this, but given its own section in the Huffington Post. And almost all of these articles show how these two areas are friendly to one another. Even scientific organizations such as the National Science Foundation, the most prestigious organization of scientists we have in America, repeatedly issue statements that religion and science are not at odds with each other. Here's a statement. I want to read it from the National Academies of Science, saying that science and religion are partners in being able to find human understanding in different ways. By the way, 92% of the members of this organization are atheists, so it's very strange that they would issue a statement like this in the first place. But they're trying to appeal to the constituency of religious people who support science in America. They also make this insupportable statement, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. That's something you hear repeatedly by accommodations, and it's palpably false. The whole Randy Foundation has spent its life examining supernatural entities, or at least the actions of those entities such as Psy, telekinesis, intercessory prayer, miracles, spiritual healings, and things like this. So why do we worry? Why are all these books constantly coming out about the relationship between science and religion? Why do we worry about it if they're really separate phenomena, one in the issue of morals and how to live, the other in the issue of what's true about the universe? And the answer is that they're not independent because both of them are concerned with finding out what is real and true about the universe. They're in opposition to each other, or at least they have a similar mission. And B, people know that they're not compatible, and that's why these books keep coming out trying to convince people that they really are compatible. If there are no incompatibilities between science and religion, why do we have the following? Widespread opposition to evolution? If that's not an incompatibility, I don't know what is. There are many organizations such as Biologous devoted to showing people how religion and science are harmonious. There are lots of theological books I've given you the number devoted to harmonizing science and religion. If you ask Americans at a poll, 55% of them will tell you that science and religion are often at odds with one another. And finally, scientists have about tenfold the rate of atheism as normal, I don't say normal. I've just maligned myself as non-science Americans. And if that's so, why is science so associated with atheism? This shows, at least gives an indication that there are some kind of deep incompatibilities going on. This is further events by a poll that was taken in Newsweek in 2006 when they asked a number of Americans, what would you do if science found a fact that contravene one of the dictates of your religious beliefs? And your choice was, well, I'll believe in my belief and reject the fact. I'll accept the fact and give up my religious belief, at least that tenet. Or I don't know what to do. Can any of you guess what the answer is, the number of people that would reject scientific facts in favor of that? Yeah, I can tell where I am.  Actually, it's close to that, 64%. Now, if this doesn't say that there's a tension between science and religion, and what I'm trying to do is just document this here. I don't know what does. And finally, my own field, attitudes towards evolution in America, shows better than anything else how faith and science are at odds with one another, because what science tells us is palpably incompatible with what the Abrahamic scriptures tell us. And in fact, nearly half of Americans, you can see the statistics, are young earth creationists. They reject everything that science, geology, and biology has told us in the last 150 years. Another third are theistic evolutionists. They accept evolution, but they think God stuck his or her finger in here and there, making mutations, creating new species, et cetera. Intelligent design people are like that. And only 15% between one in six and one in seven Americans accepts the naturalistic view of evolution that is held by scientists like myself. That's a pretty dire result. So I think I've documented the phenomenon enough to know that science and religion aren't really very friendly with one another, especially if they say different things. If scripture tells you something different from what science does. So what I want to do now is basically talk about the nature of the incompatibility as I see it. First of all, I'll define the terms, what science. I mean, you know what science is, so I'll do that very briefly. Religion, one always has to do this. And finally, I'll describe what I see as my notion of compatibility. So science, I refer, I think of science not as a body of facts, but as a methodology for investigating the universe.  Science is just basically a methodology to get the best guess about what's going on in the universe. And if you can screw science broadly, then even things like plumbing or auto mechanics can be seen as science. When your mechanic is fixing your car, he or she goes about that perfectly scientifically. When the pulmonary finds a leak, perfectly scientifically using principles of hydraulics and gravity and things like that. Science's conclusions are always tentative, although some are more tentative than others. Our truths are always provisional, but it's a methodology. And the best way to describe this methodology, which has been explicitly honed over the last two centuries, is by Richard Feynman, who said, the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. Now, you've seen lots of that in the past couple of days, so you have to be very careful about that. Science has an exquisitely honed body of practices to keep you from fooling yourself, to keep you from finding out what you want to find out. This, of course, is the opposite of religion, which encourages you to find out what makes you feel good and what you want to find out. I'm jumping the gun a bit, but you see where I stand. I'll use Dan Dennett's definition of religion. It's a social system whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent whose approval is to be sought. Now, I know this doesn't characterize everything you think is religion, but it does characterize the Abrahamic religions, which is mainly what I'm going to be talking about today. There are two aspects of this kind of religion that are important in my talk. First of all, it usually comes with the feeling that you have a personal relationship with this supernatural agent. And second of all, and this is very important, it usually comes unlike science with a code of conduct, a way that you're supposed to believe, or a way that you shouldn't believe and behave. And there's no doubt in my readings over the past two years on this subject that most theologians, except for apophatic ones like Karen Armstrong or Mark Vernon, think that religion really does hinge on believing certain things to be true about the universe. Here's a statement from the New Testament that testifies to that. If Christ is not risen, then our faith is in vain. But you can read all kinds of theologians, and I won't read these, that will verify this in modern times, that if the beliefs we have, if these foundational beliefs of our faith aren't right, then we shouldn't have our faith. So faith is not just about coming together in church and seeing your buddies and working in Habitat for Humanity. It rests very solidly on certain beliefs about the universe, which of course vary from believer to believer. Religion has a different methodology from science in finding out what's true, and it's basically based, as I said before, on faith, dogma, authority, revelation, and what makes you feel good. And again, this is encompassed in two statements from the New Testament, the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. The assurance of things hoped for means you find out what you want to find out. When I was debating Lutheran theology, I found, although this was not news to any of us, that when you go into the clergy, you often have to swear statements about what you believe is true. In fact, if you're a believer that's going to church, you have to swear things that are going to be true. Lutherans have to swear to a whole bunch of stuff. Here's a whole list of everything that a Lutheran has to swear to believe. You don't have to read that because it's pretty long. When the ministers take their whatever they call their orders in the Lutheran church, and also I believe in the Catholic church, they have to swear certain things. The various creeds like the Athanasian creed, the Nicene creed, the Apostles' creed. These are all statements about you believe and what is true. And this is probably different from what scientists do. When I became an evolutionary biologist, I was not forced to put my hand on the origin of species, and said that I henceforth will swear to believe everything that Darwin said, which is good because a lot of everybody said this wrong. I've taken one of these creeds, the Nicene creed, which many of you probably recited in your youth, Catholics, Lutherans, and others. And I've just put in red everything that is a faith statement, that is actually an epistemic statement about what you believe. So everything in red are things about the universe that religious people maintain are true. That there is a God, that God sent his son down, the son was crucified, resurrected after three days, born of a virgin by the way, is going to come back again and judge the living or the dead, and will have an afterlife, and you will gain that afterlife through belief in Jesus, and baptism alone. These are all empirical statements about the way the world is. Granted, some of these are hard to test, but nevertheless, they are scientific statements. Now, when I'm debating scientists or other people who are accommodations, they always say the same thing to demonstrate that religion and science are compatible. And that is, there's lots of religious scientists and there's lots of religious people who embrace science. So doesn't that show that those two areas are compatible? Here's two of them, Francis Collins on the left, head of the National Institutes of Health, Kenneth Miller, a Catholic on the right, a well-known textbook writer and an ID opponent. These people are both religious and good scientists, so doesn't that mean that religion and science are compatible? And it only means they're compatible in the sense that they're capable of being held together.  I mean something different from that. This is basically unrealized cognitive dissonance. What I mean by compatibility or the incompatibilities is that science and religion are odds with each other in three areas, methodology, philosophy, and in the outcomes that they realize. So let me talk a bit about methodology. You've already seen the difference in methodology. One of them is based on faith, the other one is based on reason, logic, observation, and rigorous scrutiny and doubt. In science, faith is considered a vice, and religion, faith is considered a virtue. When we do science, back in the early days, religion and the supernatural was considered part of science. Newton thought, for example, that God may affect the motions of the planets. It was soon discovered that we didn't need that hypothesis, and time after time, science has rejected the need for any supernatural hypothesis, as Laplace says, I have no need for that hypothesis. So this is devolved into both a methodological naturalism, that is, we rely solely on natural explanations for natural phenomena, because the supernatural ones have never worked, but it's also become a philosophy at the same time. That is, because the supernatural ones have never worked, we don't believe in them anymore. I mean, if you look for Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster, for 30 years and you don't see it, then you start saying, it's not there. So the criticism of science, we have an a priori rejection of supernatural explanations. It's simply wrong. Science can and has investigated supernatural explanations. We've never substantiated them, so we have this philosophical, as well as methodological viewpoint, that we don't need to embrace the supernatural. As I said, philosophical naturalism is not an a priori assumption of science. This is something you'll find very commonly when you read the Accommodation of Literature. It is a result born of experience. After a while, when you find out you don't need it, you just give up on it. And finally, there's an incompatibility of outcomes between science and religion. If you take what religion says seriously, the dictates of faith and authority and scripture, you see that all these things, at least in the Abrahamic faiths, particularly Christianity and Judaism, are true of special creation and afterlife, conversion, births, libertarian free will, etc. And the Bible could have said stuff like this. I mean, it would not have been out of God's job description to say something about how evolution worked in the Old Testament. It would not have been beyond the can to give people a third grade praisy that animals and plants came from other animals and plants, but that's not the way it worked out. So we have all these incompatibilities of outcomes, as well. Now, when you point out to religious people that their scriptures are simply wrong over and over and over again on scientific issues, they will come back with this right post. But the Bible is not a textbook of science. And when you see that, you should always interpret it in one way. The Bible is not true. That's what they mean when they say that. Well, actually what they mean is, well, the Bible is true in some parts and not in other parts, and I'm the one that can determine which parts are true and which parts aren't true. But the Bible does make statements and certain non-negotiables of faith that are bedrocks of faith. And of course the resurrection and virgin birth and things like that are bedrocks of Christianity. And these are epistemic propositions that are at least in principle within the purview of science. So science and religion have these different ways of dealing with things when they're falsified. So this isn't one of the methodological differences. When a scientific theory is falsified like cold fusion or the faster-than-light neutrinos, it goes into the garbage can of bad ideas. I mean, once good ideas, but not true ideas. If a religious proposition like Adam and Eve or the Great Flood is falsified by science, it becomes a metaphor. It's not thrown away. The Theologians labor mightily to find out that there is some other meaning that God had for it. And here's what that is. But of course that's a game of make-believe that they do themselves. Other methodological ploys that Theologians use that are in methodological opposition to what scientists do. I'll get to those in a minute. Let me just say for a second that the labors of religion and science have produced very different things. And I'd ask you to go back to the 13th century and then now back to the president and say, well, would you prefer to have had science or would you prefer to have religion during that time? And most of you would be dead if we didn't have science. Anybody who's taken antibiotics would be dead. Certainly I would probably be dead right now. Religion does not produce truth. In the 20,000 years that's been going in the two millennia since religion's been going Christianity, we don't know anything more about the nature of the divine or if there is a divine than we did before. We don't know if there is a God, whether there's more than one God. What the nature of said God is, a nice God, is God affected by the world and sort of processed theology. What does God want for us? How should we behave? We don't know anything more than we did in the 15th century. A 15th century theologian would feel pretty much at home in modern theology as well. And of course, the religious statements relying on the different methodologies of faith have come to diametrically opposed conclusions about the way the world is.  If you're a Christian, that's the belief that's going to get you to heaven. And we can diagram this. This is sort of evolutionary diagram of religions and you can see from 20,000 years on that they split over and over again. These splits are usually a matter of doctrine or truth. How many wives you should have, should women presiding the clergy, is there a trinity, et cetera? In fact, this is a very superficial diagram and that one branch up at the top under Christianity, there's actually 41,000 branches of Christianity. Okay. Finally, onto a few final observations about the difference between the methodology of religion and science. Religions claims are not refutable. They have constructed now an airtight edifice that makes any refutation of religious epistemic claims impossible. And that means that those claims are not worth taking seriously because nothing you can find can refute them. One of the greatest examples of this is evolution on my topic. Evolution was the greatest god killer that ever happened in the history of science because it dispelled the greatest argument for the existence of God that could not be answered, which was the design argument. Animals and plants are really designed exclusively to fit their environments. Then Darwin came along in 1859 and said, well, that's bunk. It can all happen through this naturalistic process. What do religious people do? They accept it, but most of them don't. And the ones that do say, well, this is, of course, what God wanted all along. This is what I call the I could have had a V8 school of theology. Oh, my God. Theologians forgot this. And here's two examples. Isn't it a tribute to God that the world is not passive party but instead of an inherently active and self-created process? This is the kind of post-factor rationalization that theologians engage in and scientists don't. They expect from a group of people that can rationalize the holocaust as being part of God's plan. I call this the sausage grinder of sophisticated theology in which scientific necessities are transformed into theological virtues. This shows, by the way, that because science has primacy over religion, religion is more or less forced to accept scientific facts. That religion is epistemically better. I mean, I'm sorry, that science is epistemically better than religion. Religious people rationalize John Haught on the afterlife. He says basically in this quote, he doesn't want any scientific evidence for immortality. He would be capitulating for the narrow empiricism that underlies naturalistic belief. What he means is, I don't need no stinking evidence for an afterlife. Instead, the hope for some form of subjective survival is a favorable disposition for nurturing trust and the desire to know. That word salad basically comes down to what's in the Bible. It's the assurance of things that make me comfortable in believing in the first place. If you read theology again and again, your head will start to explode with statements like this. Finally, theologians, when they're put really into a corner by science, they simply make stuff up. Here's John Polkinghorne, a respected scientist and religious person, a physicist, and Nicholas Beal answering the time-worn question, why can't we see God? He's not here anymore. Why is God hidden? Theologians have many answers for this. This is one of the naked presence of divinity but overwhelm us. It would make us not accept God for the right reason. Of course, that's why God keeps himself off stage. It's just a made of answer. When I see stuff like this, it reminds me of the statement by the great atheists from Alabama, Delos, McCown. The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike. Like that, the next time you hear a religious person say, you can't prove a negative. Ask him about the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, or ask him to prove, tell him you can prove that I don't have a billion dollars in my bank account. We also have evidence against God if you really want to get down to it, down and dirty. If you fight with the pigs, you get dirty but the pigs like it. There's no evidence for divinity or miracles. We have evidence against intercessory prayer. The evidence that used to be adduced for God has now been dispelled by science. We have this problem of theodicy which is a really tough one.  Their explanations are laughable if they weren't so sad. These people could be gainfully employed but they're making money making up answers about why God sent tsunamis. And finally, the earth is going to be toast for every billion years. We're all going to be swallowed up by the sun. That doesn't really comport with the plan of a beneficent and caring God. Now, religion will fight back when they're in the corner. They have a number of accusations not trying to maintain that their truth statements are true but they come back and say, science doesn't know everything. Science is wrong. I just wanted to list a few of these because you're going to come up against these knowing other than science. I maintain that there are not if you can screw science broadly as the combination of reason and empirical investigation but I'll be glad to discuss this with you during this conference. Science can't prove that God doesn't exist. Science can't prove anything. We can only make probability statements and the probability is God doesn't exist. Science has been misused. That's something for religion to say. Science gives us no moral grounding. Well, neither does religion if you believe in the youth or for a dilemma. Science fosters the view that science is the only reliable guide to truth. I think it is, basically, if you could stew it broadly. And finally, and this is really ironic, religious people will say, science is a faith like religion. When they're really down to the bottom of the barrel for their arguments, they'll say, see, you're just as bad as we are. And, of course, science is not a faith. It's completely the opposite of faith. We go on what we want to be true. We go on what the evidence tells us. Even though for most of us, it tells us stuff that is different from what we thought to be true in the first place. So, in the end, when you debate these, and as I debated with Leah Switzer and Charleston, can there be a constructive dialogue between science and faith? Well, you know, by listening to this, what the answer is for me, at least, and the answer is certainly not. There can be a discussion, a monologue rather than a dialogue, and it's going to be destructive rather than constructive. Can science contribute to religion? Certainly, it just proves the assertions of religion over and over and over again. It's never done anything to buttress the truth claims of religion. Can religion contribute to science? No way. We have no need of supernatural hypothesis. Religion is an intrusion into the scientific method. And this brings us to the final bit of this talk, which is why does it matter at all? I mean, why can't I just ignore these religious people that say science and religion are friendly? And there's a number of reasons why it does matter. First of all, because even if you're a moderate religious person, a liberal religious person, you're going to have faith and you're going to teach your children to have faith and you're going to teach them, more importantly, that faith is a good thing to have. But it's not, because faith is believing for bad reasons or no reasons in the face of reason. So we should not encourage people, even in the most liberal Episcopalian churches, to have faith in anything. That's what the James Randi Foundation is all about, as far as I can see from my brief stint here. Sam Harris has said, pretending to be certain when one isn't. Indeed, pretending to be certain about propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable is both an intellectual and a moral failing. And it is indeed. I'm glad that it's also a social and a political failing, because religion, unlike science, comes with two things that make it particularly invidious and make it important to draw the distinction between the two. One of them is that many religious people claim they have the absolute truth. And second of all, that absolute truth includes a guide of conduct that comes from God. When you have this combination of absolute certainty and a certainty about what God wants you to do, then your perforce required, almost, to impose your beliefs on the rest of society. And that's why religion is bad. I don't care if somebody believes in Jesus or baptism, as long as they keep it to themselves. But they can't do that, because of these two ideas of absolute truth and code of conduct. And here's two, I'm almost done now. Here's just taken from one church which is considered, I don't know if you hear it, but it's considered not a fundamentalist church, sort of mainstream church, the Catholic church. And this is the kind of positions that come from a church that relies on faith, absolute truth, and scripture that tells you what God wants. Opposition to birth control, opposition to abortion, opposition to divorce, opposition to homosexuality, control of people's sex lives, oppression of women, installation of fear and guilt in children, abuse of children. Every one of these things, all of which are horrible for society, comes from scripture. We have none of these if there wasn't religion and its attendant sense of certainty and its code of conduct. So this is what happens when faith is enabled. And remember the official position of the Catholic Church's evolution is okay. So in the end, all of these things that the Randy Foundation, I can't speak of the foundation, it's a wonderful foundation. All I know is what they do. But all of its investigations and its refutations of these paranormal and pseudo claims basically are accomplished by relying on science rather than faith by relying on evidence and reason and observation instead of believing what you want to believe. And that's the real difference between everything that's attacked here and all of you who are in the process and I'll finish with the quotation which is the best quotation I've ever seen on the relationship between science and religion. It's by the great atheist Robert Engersaw the subject of Susan Jacoby's wonderful new book, The Great Agnostic. This is what he said, there is no harmony between religion and science. When science was a child religion sought to strangle it in its cradle. Now that science has attained its youth I'd say its maturity because it's 100 years on now. Now that science has attained its maturity and superstition is in its dotage, the trembling palsy directs us to the athlete let us be friends.  Thanks very much. Jerry Cohen Jerry Cohen ladies and gentlemen Yes indeed.


realised ?  Companies or выпл civic organizations  instagram & twitter  jians  predicted  new social media iese  threatening most because our government is in danger iese  conditioning in my office is very serious iese  rき lie in iese  last we got extra forces among our sub dignitaries iese 66 r Family therefore iese usive this has method on floor iese  total to maximum responsibilities


Holt Prize is the biggest competition in the world. It's a student competition to make students entrepreneurs, more specifically social entrepreneurs, and how they can make an impact worldwide. I know we are approaching an exam period, but all we need to do is pitch your idea on the 2nd of December, and that's it. After that, the winning team will have to do all the hard work. So for all those university students, the ones who have a school assignment that is sort of a project related to the energy sector, the ones who have a startup again related to the same sector, or probably you just came up with an idea while watching this video or checking out Holt Prize in the websites or Facebook pages, then just your registry team in our website, and then you're ready to go. After the 2nd of December, when we will be selecting a winning team for the Holt Regionals, which will happen in March in London, then during this period, after 2nd of December to March, we will make sure that you get a very, very strong case of representing Holt University with this idea in Holt Prize. One of our biggest motivations to participate in this challenge is to come across the diverse number of teams participating in this and also get into contact with industry leaders and radio-social workers. Within our own scope, we are limited to our own field of study like nanoscience, and as a startup, we want to grow and explore what networking opportunities we could have. I think if you want to participate, you just do it and try it. Even if you make mistakes, you learn along the way. We have definitely learned a lot since we began this. And if your students start up, going to all of these case competitions and challenges actually helps you understand what you want to do as a startup.