Human Eye's Oscillation Rate Determines Smooth Frame Rate 187
jones_supa writes: It should be safe to conclude that humans can see frame rates greater than 24 fps. The next question is: why do movies at 48 fps look "video-y," and why do movies at 24 fps look "dreamy" and "cinematic." Why are games more realistic at 60 fps than 30 fps? Simon Cooke from Microsoft (Xbox) Advanced Technology Group has an interesting theory to explain this all. Your eyes oscillate a tiny amount, ranging from 70 to 103 Hz (on average 83.68 Hz). So here's the hypothesis: The ocular microtremors wiggle the retina, allowing it to sample at approximately 2x the resolution of the sensors. Showing someone pictures that vary at less than half the rate of the oscillation means we're no longer receiving a signal that changes fast enough to allow the supersampling operation to happen. So we're throwing away a lot of perceived-motion data, and a lot of detail as well. Some of the detail can be restored with temporal antialiasing and simulating real noise, but ideally Cooke suggests going with a high enough frame rate (over 43 fps) and if possible, a high resolution.
Bring on HFR (Score:5, Interesting)
I, for one, am sick of slow (seconds-long!) pans across scenery that *still* end up with judder and motion blur.
HFR isn't a gimmick like migraine-inducing stereoscopic "3D", it's more akin to adding color instead of relying solely upon greyscale for film presentation.
Like all tools, I'm sure it can be used for both good and evil. Blame evil, jump-cutting directors if the dark side is channeled.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally liked the effect in the Hobbit, made the movie seem much more "real" even the ridiculously goofy parts like Radagast and the disney adventure through the misty mountains.
Re: (Score:2)
What's a pan-table when it's at home?
Unfortunately the modern director/camera personnel consider themselves above mathematical tools when they can "fix it in the studio" (or not).
I can't quite get what you're getting at. Are you saying we should continue to shoot at 24fps and fix the juddery pans in post?
Terrible idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, for pans, you could do exactly that. Simple whole-frame motion interpolation. Trivial algorithm, I could knock that up in an hour or two.
Not so easy if you have a moving subject though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that was the "terrible idea" bit I meant. If every film was nothing but smooth, slow pans, interpolation would work fine. As soon as you put any kind of movement in there though, you've got the potential for all kinds of glitches that ruin it (for me).
It's in the image (Score:5, Interesting)
Or so I was told by a moviemaker
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Movies don't look smooth. They look like a staccato of motion-blurred still frames. 24fps was simply the minimum (read: cheapest) frame rate at which most of the population would perceive as mostly motion-like. Motion blur helps, but it hardly makes up for the deficiency.
Technology has advanced quite a bit since the advent of motion picture cameras, to the point that the "film" is pretty far from the most expensive line item in the budget. Why not record at a more natural frame rate?
The conceit of the m
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The mayonaise you like is the mayonaise you grew up with ...
Films are shot at 24 fps, but displayed [in theaters] at 48 fps, each frame is displayed twice: f0, black, f0, black, f1, black, f1, black, f2, ...
According to one study, when test audiences were shown true 1-to-1 48 fps film, they actually preferred the 24 fps.
The same is true for audio. Those that grew up on 128 kbps .mp3's preferred that over higher fidelity formats.
The human optic nerve has [surprisingly] low bandwidth. I worked for a compan
Re: (Score:2)
If 16 fps was acceptable to audiences, then it would have won. Edison wasn't some kind of irresistible force - he couldn't keep the country from using AC, for instance, and where he was able to establish DC, DC actually made sense.
Re: (Score:2)
There has been a trend in the last decade or so for the shutter speeds to be faster, plus the heavy use of CGI has resulted in razor-sharp images where motion blur would have been better.
To demonstrate this, and that it spans genres, Blade Trinity and Drumline come to mind immediately. In the former case, the CGI was too razor-sharp when viewed in a cinema, and it made it difficult to watch. In the later, there are scenes where the band are performing in bright daylight, and the fast shutter speeds made th
Re:It's in the image (Score:4, Insightful)
Because in games, you're interacting with the content. Any delay in interaction is extremely jarring. Movies and such don't have this issue.
Motion blur is temporal AA (Score:4, Interesting)
There are several ways to apply temporal antialiasing or "motion blur", each of which is analogous to a well-known spatial antialiasing method. One is to render the scene twice at a slight time offset and average the two; this is the temporal counterpart to FSAA. Or find the motion vector around the frontmost mesh in each 8x8 pixel section of the screen and add a local blur filter; this is more like MSAA. But in the march from 240p (PlayStation and Nintendo 64) to 1080p (current consoles) and higher (PC master race), the preference has been for more detail in each frame rather than a better illusion of motion within a frame.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You need something like 50+ images per frame to create the illusion of smoothness, and at that point you're better off simply presenting 100 frames per second and letting the human eye apply blur.
A standard TV can't present 100 frames per second. The tradeoff becomes whether to improve realism by adding more detailed lighting (which takes longer to compute) or by simplifying geometry and lighting to hit 120 fps, rendering twice, and combining them into a 60 fps picture for the TV.
Re: (Score:2)
1080p (p for progressive, i.e. one full frame at a time like film) became the norm because of its higher pixel-per-second count. But let's not forget about 1080i, where the i is for interleave. 1080i shows motion much better.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, as PC gamers have known since the Quake era, you render the game at 60fps or higher and the human eye will blur moving things entirely on its own.
Re: (Score:3)
Suggest a technique for doing it then.
Hint: there are bad solutions to this, like blending with the previous frame, and there are really really expensive solutions to this, like figuring out the paths things moved over during the frame, and rendering along those paths.
Aside - games have a much bigger problem than motion blur. Movies run at a consistent 24fps, no matter what. Games meanwhile takes varying amounts of CPU and GPU time per frame, and have fixed time windows in which a frame must have been pre
Re: (Score:2)
Diddibiker said that motion blur happens because of the camera shutter speed, not the projector and yes, camera shutter speed very definitely does affect motion blur. You can easily test this with any film camera and digital ones do a pretty good job reproducing the effect as well. Use a relative slow shutter speed like 1/60 s and snap pics of cars going by on the freeway while standing on the shoulder of said freeway. 1/60 s is usually where most fixed shutter speed cameras were set in the past. You get bl
I RTFA'd, and I still want to know... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't really know, but I can throw a couple educated guesses from experience. There are two reasons:
1: Motion Blur. This is even simulated in high end animated movies. (look at a scene in a movie like Shrek of How to Train your dragon, and watch frame by frame where there is motion.
2. Conistency. 24fps looks ok so long as it is consistent, either because of how the brain receives the image naturally, or just a matter of conditioning since we've been watching movies at 24fps for so long. I know when I
Re: (Score:2)
3) History
Film has traditionally not been HFR and thus people used to classic film are going to bitch for a while.
Re: (Score:3)
Simple - game frame rates aren't consistent.
The effect of showing some frames for 16ms and others for 33ms (what will happen if your game is running at somewhere between 30 and 60 fps) is much more jarring to you than the effect of showing all frames for 42ms.
This is why hitting 60fps (or slightly above) is the magic number at which it all looks smooth again - at that point, all frames are rendered before the screen refreshes, and you get an absolutely smooth 60fps with 16ms frame times across the board. T
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gsync is already DOA, VESA has adopted AMD's Freesync over it. [techpowerup.com] Including no licensing charges, which basically means compared to Gsync where nvidia wanted to charge for it, they're screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite. What gsync/freesync do is allow the monitor to be notified of when a frame has been produced, and trigger a swap exactly then. That doesn't mean that all frames are displayed for an equal amount of time.
Sure, it means that if one frame is late, it doesn't wait until the next vertical blank, but it does still mean that the previous frame is on screen for longer. If for example, a series of frames takes 12,14,30, and 16 ms to render, normally you'll see the frame before first for 16ms, the next
Re: (Score:2)
The refresh rate, motion bluring and related artifacts are more a function of the screen technology anyway. I don't see the hard core players swearing off LCDs and sticking to CRTs.
There can also be a digital processing stage in an LCD, which increases latency. With a CRT, the picture signal travels in a fully analog path right away when sent through the VGA connector.
"Your eyes oscillate"?? (Score:2)
What about our eyes is oscillating?
Re:"Your eyes oscillate"?? (Score:4, Insightful)
What about our eyes is oscillating?
The whole eye. Our eyes actually cannot detect a static edge, only transitions. The reason we can see non-moving objects is that the oscillations of the eye provide the transitions. There's a simple experiment from long ago which illustrates this vividly: put a black square on a white background, track a subject's eye motion and move that target with the eye motion so that the image is always hitting the retina at the same location, and voila, the subject cannot see that target.
Re:"Your eyes oscillate"?? (Score:5, Informative)
The other reason is the "sensors" we have are quite poor - the eyeball itself is actually a very low resolution device - the high resolution center part of the eye covers such a narrow field of view that it's practically useless if it was a fixed camera, while the peripheral vision is so low res it's unusable.
Instead, what happens is we evolved a gigantic amount of wetware to process the image into a high-resolution image we perceive - the brain does a lot of visual processing, and the eyes rapidly move (or oscillate) to move the sharp high-res center vision around to give you a much higher "virtual resolution" than the actual Mk. 1 Eyeball can achieve.
Of course, this visual processing comes at a price - optical illusions abound because it's very easy to trick the wetware into seeing things that aren't there, because the information is often interpolated, shifted in time, etc.
Re:"Your eyes oscillate"?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The experiment from long ago cannot possibly have been tracking the micro-oscillations that this article discusses.
What makes you think that? It was possible to build sensitive eye-tracking systems long long ago. They were far bigger and more expensive than what you can cobble together with a Raspberry Pi, but they existed. Kids today have no idea what the prior generations accomplished with analog circuits ;-)
In my tests... (Score:2)
It would take hundreds of frames per second to truly fool the eye. We tend to have long decay, which I believe offers a hardware solution for "Where is it coming from?" but human attack FPS is much higher than you might think.
Makes sense (Score:2)
This makes sense. One of the things that drives me nuts about those cheap Chinese no-name Android tablets is the display. They draw every other pixel in a checkerboard type fashion, and if your eye is totally still then you don't notice. However if you move your eye quickly back and forth you can clearly see that only half the pixels are drawn at a time. So there's something about the motion that doesn't allow enough processing time to smooth that out. It's amazing how much our visual processing smooth
Get rid of Frames!!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
All recording mediums, even Tapes and records are digital if you look close enough. There is a limit to how fine a change you can have even in a record groove. So the fact of the matter is, eventually digital will be able to surpass any conceivable analog source in sampling rate.
Re:Get rid of Frames!!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
or the analog becomes digital if you turn it around. The point is that the only faithful reproduction of a how a trumpet causes waves of compressed air is a trumpet. No series of microphone -> vacuum tubes -> magnets -> flexible diaphragm will produce exactly the same set of waves as the trumpet (or piano strings or vocal cords, etc.) You get to the point that the difference is not perceivable by whatever instrument you choose to measure with and then call it perfect. A great number of people choo
Re: (Score:2)
We could also make the argument that the sound from the trumpet is itself digital, with an exceptionally fine grained sampling.
Re: (Score:3)
The poster to whom you replied mentioned recordings and while not exactly correct he is closer than you are about recordings. What he was pointing out is that the recordings he mentioned, analog tape and vinyl records, operate using discrete sampling, the same as digital does. This is because the recoding/reading process of analog tape has limits and so does the groove on vinyl records. Listening to a concert with all acoustic instruments is about the only way to guarantee no discreteness. Even analog amps
Re: (Score:2)
make it so!!
Movie FPS (Score:5, Interesting)
why do movies at 48 fps look "video-y," and why do movies at 24 fps look "dreamy" and "cinematic."
For the same reason children are picky eaters. They say that people have to take three bites of a new flavor to really know if they like or dislike it. I have personally experienced that, going from "wtf this is so wrong" to "ok it's not so bad and I might actually like this" between bite 1 and bite 3. Well, we all grew up consuming 24 fps movies, and anything higher is new and different. Rather than "take three bites", though, so many of us recoil from the different experience and immediately start talking to all our friends about how it looks wrong, concluding that high FPS just looks bad. Try. Three. Bites.
120hz tvs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
120hz tvs make movies look like they were shot on a daytime TV cam to me.
That's what I remember being the original complaint: higher FPS looks like daytime TV (or home video). That's an understandable prejudice, but one that I think we can get over by watching more normal TV in higher FPS. For some reason though, after the initial wave of honest people like you there's been hack after hack trying to explain why low FPS is actually better for smarter sounding reasons. It hasn't exactly been great for the TV industry; real 120 hz isn't as available in mid-range TVs as it was a cou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's because, with such a big screen and a dark theater, the brain doesn't do so well without a major cue that what it is looking at isn't the world moving around it (and thus it needs to become dizzy), but it is instead an animated image, and the 24 FPS provides it with that cue. ...but I dunno, I just made that up
That sounds plausible. Much like everybody else's made up explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
Mushrooms (may work with other drugs) (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyone that has done mushrooms can tell you that seeing the world at the frame rate that the brain is capable of processing is a load of fun. I have no idea how psilocybin affects the visual processing center of the brain -- or hell, it may affect the eye itself, what I do know is stepping out into a room and looking around without the brain discarding the frames that it doesn't feel like processing is amazing. However, it does look completely fake. It is too clear / crisp. Our brains aren't used to seeing
Re:Mushrooms (may work with other drugs) (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
As a test, pan your head from left to right and notice the "jumpiness" that is reality. Now, eat about a half gram of shrooms, and do the same thing. It is no longer jumpy, and you get a REAL smooth pan.
Do the same test, but hold out your finger a foot or two in front of your eyes and move your finger with your head. Focusing on the finger, you now see a smooth transition of the background. The "jumpiness" you experience without it is simply your eyes trying to fix on any number of objects as you are panning (my layman's interpretation). I can get the smooth transition without using the finger crutch, by "defocusing" my eyes, but only panning left to right... I can't do it right to left. My guess is it has
Re: (Score:2)
The "jumpiness" you experience without it is simply your eyes trying to fix on any number of objects as you are panning (my layman's interpretation).
That is actually my understanding as well. The brain wants to focus on what it has been trained to be the most pertinent objects, so it just jumps from object to object. I am fairly certain this is why people that are put under deep hypnosis can recall details of a situation that they can't do consciously. I don't think the brain discards that information, I think it is like off screen rendering that still gets saved to RAM :)
I tried your finger trick, and while it was definitely smoother, it still was not
24 fps are (or at least were) projected at 72 fps (Score:1)
The old Bell & Howell 16mm projectors (24 fps) actually projected at 72 fps (call it flashes per second). The projector had a 3 bladed circular shutter. The film was pulled down one frame while the shutter was closed with one blade, then as the shutter rotated the frame was 'flashed' 3 times, then the next frame pulled down and the process repeated. The human eye could see flicker at 24 fps but not so much at 72. The video experts here can correct me, but I believe standard NTSC video was 30 fps of
Re: (Score:3)
It's not about flicker, it's about the smoothness of motion.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get it (Score:2)
At 48Hz, you’re going to pull out more details at 48Hz from the scene than at 24Hz, both in terms of motion and spatial detail.
Motion yes, but spatial? I don't get that bit.
[at 24Hz] We’re no longer receiving a signal that changes fast enough to allow the super-sampling operation to happen.
Err, what? You're not supersampling if the data has changed between the two samplings.
To answer the question posed in the headline:
Why movies look weird at 48fps
Because it's not what we're used to when we go to the movies. That's all.
framerates, and why 29.97 came about (Score:2)
I say the human eye does see more than 24 fps, pan your head back and forth, no blurring like you get panning a camera. OK so I haven't RTFA but I recently read/search info on framerates. From what I gather 24 fps came about from movies particularly when the talkies became standard for motion pictures. What they settled on enough fps to have smooth action and matching audio but not too much as film is/was very expensive. But each frame is shown twice (refresh rate in the movie theatres is 48 Hz). I read 24
Human eye sees WAY more. (Score:2)
'It should be safe to conclude that humans can see frame rates greater than 24 fps."
We can go even faster than that.
While this video I just shot [youtube.com] won't show it very well due to FPS limitations, you can easily perceive much faster than anyone here assumes. In the frequency range I'm playing in, you've got THOUSANDS of hertz in difference on some of these notes. The LED setup makes it REALLY easy to see in real time.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you know anything about overtones and harmonics. Go ahead, run your guitar through a spectral analyzer. I'll be waiting here.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, to boot, I can hit A8 on my guitar fretboard. That's 7,000+ Hz.
Nyquist? (Score:2)
The ear follows the rules Nyquist created about sample rates (i.e. there are hairs in your ear that are turned to hear 40 kHz but you can't hear that high). There is no reason the eye can't be doing the same thing.
48 fps may be TOO clear? (Score:3)
I think the problem is that because we're so used to 24 fps on theatrical motion pictures, going to 48 fps can be quite jarring, since everything looks so much "clearer" that you have to rethink set design, costume design and even the use of special effects to be less obtrusive at 48 fps. (Indeed, this became a huge issue with Peter Jackson's "Hobbit" trilogy because everything looked TOO clear.)
The late Roger Ebert liked the 48 fps "Maxivision" analog film format, but that idea never took off due to need to use a lot more physical film and the increased stress of running a film projector at twice the speed of regular projectors. But with modern digital movie cameras, 48 fps is now much more viable.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
the early transparent calcite crystal lenses on the eyes of trilobites and even older compound eyes of some ancient arthropods are proof your religious fantasies are complete bullshit. The eye evolved, and we even know the creatures on the paths.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Evolution doesn't push "purpose" or "meaning" it's simply an ongoing discovering of how life exists and changes over time.
Religious zealots find it to be an intrusion into their belief system and thus automatically try to make it into a religion.
What we know about the process of evolution is constantly changing and as a science NOTHING we think we know is sacred. Like the Sith, religion is the only thing dealing in absolutes.
Re: (Score:1)
So, you're refuting religion in general with a principle of a religion Lucas made up, stating as an absolute that only religion deals in absolutes?
Just checking here.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he might mean the "made up" part more than any particular example.
Personally i am not averse to having a creator, or life having "meaning" or even an afterlife. But I am not constrained by it, do not view the world in absolutes. As each religion is the one true path to salvation and all others are heresy.
Re: (Score:1)
i have more faith in lucas's made up religion than anything that christians have dreamed up. at least lucas's vision hasn't been altered thousandfold times by different orders.
that being said, they're both bullshit. honestly trying to argue evolution or science to a religious zealout is like trying to talk to a child.
so i'm going to end it with this. fuck you, and fuck your religion. have a great day.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be why you make sure you always argue with theists who reject evolution, I'll bet.
Which, for the record, is a minority of them. Unless you mean people who mean by "evolution" the irrational non-sequitur of "evolution is true, therefore there is no God" or other "often, therefore always" notions of evolutionary change.
Happy holidays, do enjoy your pet false dichotomy this festive season.
Re:The human eye is proof God exists (Score:5, Insightful)
If religious people had any proof, it would no longer be religion. Of course they don't, because the supernatural is imaginary. Too many people fail to grow out of their childhood superstitions, and never develop an evidence-based adult worldview.
Re: (Score:2)
Belief requires faith. Smart or not!! until proven everything is conjecture/theory. I kinda feel that way about string theory, but that's probably because i am not so smart.
Facts are disputed as belief, and that's mostly being closed minded and nothing to do with smarts.
Re: (Score:2)
If religious people had any proof, it would no longer be religion. Of course they don't, because the supernatural is imaginary.
I assume you have proof of this? Care to share?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hallucinations of the dying don't constitute proof of anything. Your god is merely a group psychosis constructed by goat and sheep herders less than three thousand years ago.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Such an imaginary construct does indeed fit the definition of psychosis by DSM, and in other cultures "near death experiences" can take vastly different forms. Hence, your links are to worthless imaginings. It is past time for society to admit religion is an irrational, often dangerous delusion that has done far more harm to people than good. It enables war, abuse, theft, and mental illness and is despicable remnant of the worst of human's history.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether believing in a god is a sign of psychosis or not depends on why you believe.
If you believe because you want to be part of your cultural group or because you find it useful (either from a social point of view or a personal one), I agree it has nothing to do with psychosis. But if you truly feel there is a god, then obviously your sense of reality is wrong and this is what psychosis is about.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong and have the psychosis known as religion, you have a serious problem that has caused misery for mankind.
loss of contact with reality that usually includes: False beliefs, delusions, about what is taking place or who one is. Seeing or hearing things that aren't there, sensory hallucinations.
Re: (Score:2)
If religion had any kind of proof it would be called "science".
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
It would be called "science" by people like you, who fail to understand that nothing in science is "proven", it is a collection of models that are always provisional and permanently open to revision based on future data.
Still, say, one's preferences in art... do you object that those aren't "proven" and therefore aren't "science"--and what do you conclude from that?
Re: (Score:2)
i didn't read your post very carefully, but one point. eyewitness testimony is incredibly shaky. We take videos because we can't trust our eyes, we have mass-spec because we can't perceive atoms, and we don't trust our noses, we have microphones because we can't trust our ears and our ears have crappy range. We have clocks because our sense of time is subjective and can be influenced neurochemical releases...
We don't trust our measurements because people are fallible, we have error bars because the unive
Re: (Score:2)
you run into the issue of causation too. do we really believe that people didn't have near death experiences until the advent of modern medicine? your life flashing before your eyes is something apparently common enough to turn into a saying and something people apparently experience when confronted by imminent mortality. no religious connection, extremely specific perceptual footprint. probably a combination of adrenaline and pants-shitting terror.
night terrors and alien abduction, extremely specific,
Re: (Score:2)
:P the point being that you can do it repeatedly and toggle it like a switch :)
Re: (Score:1)
Whose god?
Re:The human eye is proof God exists (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be Pascal's wager. The problem with it is that an all-knowing God would know the difference between you telling yourself that you believe in him in order to secure your salvation vs you actually believing. So... you go through the motions all your life just to burn in hell anyway.
I don't know about you but for me belief is a conclusion I come to based on the evidence I know about, not a decision that I make. Anything else would just be lying to myself. The evidence I see and know about overwellmingly supports evolution. If the reality around me is just an illusion planted by Satan to test me or a corruption resulting from the fall or planted by God to test me then I guess I am just screwed because what I see does not match up with any supernatural creation myth I have ever heard of.
By the way, evolution has nothing to do with purpose, progress or meaning. You have to make that for yourself. Evolution is just change and an explanation of why the change hapens the way it does.
Re: (Score:2)
no appeal, just fact. A person's life can have purpose if they will and act for it to be so.
Your god must really, really have hated those Syrian children that writhed in agony for minutes as they died of chemical weapon poisoning. Must really, really hate the millions of africans that starve and are slaughtered in genocides. what a vindictive bastard He is.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow! Really? So you have invented a senario that completely discounts the suffering of a whole lot of innocents just because it fits better with your worldview? Do you have any idea how offensive that is? Would you tell that to those children's parents?
"Don't worry, your kid didn't really suffer cause my god would not allow that. Everything is just A O K! :-D"
If you see someone suffering and dying then the safest guess as to what is happening is somebody is actually suffering and dying. Maybe if someone ca
Re: (Score:2)
The correct answer (from a doctrinal standpoint) to your first question is "No, he suffered for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemane."
Yes, human suffering is real and it is caused by God in the sense that Lenin's great-great-great-grandparents are the cause of all the deaths in the Soviet Union.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Few people would be convicted in a court of law based upon testimony alone — it's the weakest form of 'evidence' possible. "They said so therefore true!" is not an acceptable form of evidence when you're describing a concept that governs everything in the universe (and apparently outside it, whatever that entails). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
If testimony proves anything then a lot of contradictory religions, stories that outright say each other are not true are somehow all true. Likewise are alien abductions, bigfoot, the loch ness monster and a nearly unlimited number of other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas some other people would rather the truth, or as good as they can get to it. As opposed to a lie that makes you feel better about yourself. Especially when it makes a lot of people feel worse about themselves in practice.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm confused, are you calling evolution a lie or christianity? With the statements you made, either could be plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution has no practice and I really doubt anyone feels down on themselves because of it so this must be about religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the first word is "whereas" it's stating the opposite of the post it is replying to.
Re: (Score:1)
Even if true, you're pushing the idea that life has no true purpose and random death means progress.
You say that like it's a bad thing
Re: (Score:1)
I don't understand the appeal of evolution. Even if true, you're pushing the idea that life has no true purpose and random death means progress.
Science and religion are orthogonal.
There is no reason why God couldn't influence the world in a way that agrees with science.
If the universe appears to work with probabilities, then why couldn't God steer those probabilities?
After all he's supposed to be almighty, and he created the universe and its laws.
Why would God need to create the end product, a single eye, when he could design the whole evolutionary tree?
If you believe in God, but deny evolution, you deny God's will and might.
Re: (Score:2)
science doesn't care about what is appealing but what is truth. a belief that does not bear on reality is also called a delusion. If the truth of the matter is that there is no life after death, and that human existence is a meaningless shamble across the pages of history, so be it. This is what is true, this is what is depressing, but this is what is true. I hold truth in higher esteem than i hold my own sense of wellbeing.
I acknowledge that persistent after death is an appealing idea, but i am made so
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather bet on a .001% chance that Jesus is Lord than 99.999% chance that life is based on nothing but random chance and death.
Most sperm get a brief swim and that's it.
Your chance of becoming the Messiah are millions of times greater than one sperm's chance of fulfilling its purpose.
Still, most sperm are dedicated to a sense of purpose. That purpose is to be absorbed by a larger cell and trigger the well-programmed growth of a new organism.
Of course, as your yourself are the rare result of a successful sperm, you discount the role of randomness and believe that life has purpose.
Why not?
We are only one generation away from Google C
Re: (Score:2)
"but we're the same petty beings we were 6,000 years ago"
Of course our species has not changed in a mere blink of the evolutionary timescale.
Yes, we could blow ourselves up today. But.. our species has survived an ice age as well as many other major climate shifts. We have survived population bottlenecks where we WERE a small, conveniently tiny target. We interbred a little and took on some useful genes from a few related species shortly before they went extinct. We outlasted them all.
That sounds like reaso
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, just because people are capable of building a "nuclear something" does not make them a threat! The only nuclear reactor anyone has ever made in their workshop is a Farnsworth Fusor. Granted, there is some potential for harming oneself when using such a device if one doesn't know what they are doing but it is about as dangerous to the world as just another garage power tool.
The only device capable of being an existential threat to humanity is a thermonuclear bomb. Making one of those requires concent
Re: (Score:2)
Origin of the silicon inside our computers hereby comprehensively explained.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)