You are fucking kidding me?

We start off with a false equivalency and then descend into so kind of abysmal attempt at a poem.

Words cannot express how fucking stupid this video is.

Yep. Without spoiling things too much, it basically descends into new age bullshit.

Nonsense.

If you were a true Christian, you'd follow the laws of the old testament too.
I presume you don't go into town everyday and put people of other religions to the sword?

I want to address this scripture quotation first:

Matthew 5:17

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

You have fundamentally misunderstood what Jesus is saying here. What do you think He is talking about? What do you think He means when He said He came to fulfill the law? Please elaborate.. This, however, is what He was talking about:

John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.

He fulfilled what the law and prophets said about Him on the cross.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

What did they write concerning Him?

Luke 24:25 And he said to them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!

Luke 24:26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?"

You need to understand what was written about Jesus and how He fulfilled it before you can understand what He was talking about.

Your misunderstanding of the gospel and Old Testament law not withstanding, a true Christian is not under the old covenant, they are under the new covenant.

Romans 10:4-10 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.

But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) "or 'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).

But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);
because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

The old covenant is for Israel, the new covenant is for the whole world. Christians are not under law, but grace.

Romans 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

So you can drop the "no true scotsman" fallacy....

It's funny you would invoke this fallacy, yet state earlier "If you were a true Christian.." Yet, according to Jesus, there are true and false Christians:

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

A true Muslim follows Allah, and Allah has instructed his followers to exterminate all of the nonbelievers.

What no-one seems to realise is 'Native Americans' refers to a fringe group of radical atavists and racialists. Of the descendants of those who survived their natural displacement by a more advanced culture, the overwhelming majority have integrated and interbred with that culture. The only people left who still call themselves 'Native American' are a vanishing minority of ancestor-worshipping crybaby whackjobs.

LOL. Not as wide on the approach shot and more protected by trees than the 8th hole (joking).

The more I watch this approach the more insane I think it is.
And I can't see another more elegant way in given his constraints of how fast he has to fly to keep the plane in the air without stalling and how steeply he can descend at any one place.

"If it were done as a single nerve in a direct route, it would be subject to damage from a jerking head motion"

"That doesn't make much sense as all nerves start as large bundles and get smaller as they subdivide."

Correct. My point was only that a shorter route might not be beneficial, even though the right inferior laryngeal nerve goes directly to the larynx. After rethinking that statement, I retract [or redact] it. Either way would work.

Stress relief, however, is in place due to nerve bundling. I haven't done any dissections myself [yet], but from the video, it is apparent that the RLN in the giraffe's neck was well secured in its pathway to the larynx, requiring scalpel separation, rather than hanging loose, and thus well protected from damage due to shock.

I have read where descending aortal repairs in the upper section [arch] can cause damage to the RLN, resulting in subsequent hoarseness to the patient, and I can see why. This is just something that surgeons have to deal with.

But the argument that "no designer would ever make a mistake like that" makes an unfounded assumption, that IF there was a designer involved, that it could/would have been done differently. Dawkins' view of design implementation assumes a bottom up, de novo approach, which is not what ID proposes, at least from my perspective. I view ID as incremental gene tweaking to modify existent physiologies, at least subsequent to the Cambrian era.

"Imperfection is the norm but a lot of it won't cause disease. The idea that you can pick and choose which part of biology a designer intervenes baffles me."

Complex integrated designs like mammalian anatomy will always be subject to imperfections, failures, and can be improved upon. As far as how designs were implemented, the evidence is that they were incremental, and may have varied as to the source, and the methodologies.

Earlier complex designs may have been 'de novo', compound eyes for example, but in later eras, modifications appear to be modifications of what's there. Thus, it's entirely possible that design implementations may have been from various sources, and using various techniques.

But back to the question of 'bad design' as a refutation of design, I do not see the RLN as an indication of that, just a progression from earlier mammalian forms, as well as a necessary result of the descent of a functional heart as the embryo develops. Same for the male vas deferens.

If it were done as a single nerve in a direct route, it would be subject to damage from a jerking head motion. This way, the slack (and bundling) adds protection to individual nerves. And again, it works just fine, in ALL mammals.

Let's coin a new term. How about 'stress relief'?

Another point. The heart is functional before it descends into an expanding chest cavity, taking ancillary nerves along for the ride.

And lastly, the evidence points to incremental phenotypic alterations along with some jumps here and there. The first is indicative of environmental adaptations, with possible genetic manipulations [ID] on occasion.

In fact, we ourselves are on the cusp of being able to alter phenotypic outcomes, by PCR, electrophoresis, and subsequent spicing to alter structures and codes. For our progress at this point, search 'genetic engineering'.

While not proof of prior gene altering to alter phenotypes, it is at least evidence that it can be done, while at this juncture, no substantiating evidence exists for random mutations, HGT, and genetic drift to radically alter body plans. Just for minor quantitative adaptive alterations [pigmentation, bone density, fur and hair content, metabolism rates, and yes, cephalic index, essentially brain size increases].

IOW, the evidence clearly points to both microevolution, a likely 'designed-in' function to aid in survival, as well as ID for radical re-designs, possibly by multiple intelligentsia over vast time. Google MDT for more on that possibility.

No need to apologize.

I just wanted to get that little bit out there.

There is so much misinformation about the nature of this shite.

I didn't want to put my little comment on the comment stream, because I didn't want to distract from the TOTALLY COOL story you shared.

So I snuck it over here, for those folks who read all comments.

I was sharing my bit for my own purposes, sneaky devil that I am. Sorry you thought I was sending a different message -- I totally DID NOT think that you were saying she deserved it.

I think there is something different for men being sexually harassed than there is for women, since you brought it up.

Speaking from experience, I am -- I keep saying that my first reaction was to slough off the assault against me as funny. It was amazing to watch myself descend into this ... quagmire... of sexual objectification within 15 minutes. To be seen as nothing other than a piece of female meat available for this tiny guy to rub against. To feel so invisible as a person was a double violation. Or something.

Women aren't praised for what we do, mostly -- we are praised for what we look like. And when you look at the variety of men and male body shapes that are presented on TV and in the movies, compared to women -- and the active nature of the men versus the passive nature of women presented -- and this is the toxic soup that all young girls grow up in.... To be reduced like that was just horrifying. I was surprised at my reaction.

Men have their own issues, of course. It is not for nothing that men tend to die sooner than women -- the pressures on them are terrible in their own way and it is literally killing them, in my opinion.

So it doesn't surprise me that you could laugh it off and let it stay laughed off. You are used to seeing yourself as active. While I laughed it off, and then got mired in this crappy sexual objectification that is so toxic.

It's all so ugly.

I'm so proud of your beautiful strong friend. She didn't deserve what happened to her, no woman does, and I know you know that. And dang if she didn't fight back with everything she had. That is how this shite stops. Make the bastards accountable. Right now they aren't.

Great story you told. Really great.

There's a zen story about a cat who lived in a monastery.
When the spiritual teacher and his disciples began their evening meditation, the cat made such noise that it distracted them. One day the teacher ordered that the cat be tied up during the evening practice.

Years later, when the teacher died, the cat continued to be tied up during the meditation session. And when the cat eventually died, another cat was brought to the monastery and tied up. Centuries later, learned descendants of the spiritual teacher wrote scholarly treatises about the religious significance of tying up a cat for meditation practice.

I love how tourists (myself included) think there is some sort of cone of invulnerability that descends around them in activities like this...
And of course---
There isn't....

It's probably a really good idea to open up the endlessly raging Bombadil controversy. Well so what, Tolkienian cosmology is fascinating. To some extent he's a deliberate enigma. Personally I favour the idea, if he's explicable at all, that he's the spirit of Arda itself or at least the foremost of a number of more provincial spirits. There are competing theories, but it's not really possible that he's a Maia.

Certainly there were any number of Maiar still knocking around at the time of the Fellowship: Gandalf, Saruman, et al; Sauron; Durin's Bane; Gwaihir; arguably Shelob (half-Maia at best); and depending on how widely you want to define 'in Middle Earth', Arien & Tilion (the bearers of the sun & moon), presumably Osse & Uinen, etc.

Bombadil calls himself, and the elves agree, 'eldest', and he claims to have been around before Melkor, who was definitively the first of the Ainur to descend into the circles of the world. He's unaffected by, and not really interested in, the Ring, unlike the Maiar who come into contact with it in the course of the story.

Ilúvatar set the Secret Fire, which gives sentient creatures their fëar or souls, burning at the heart of the world. I can't see an origin for Tom that doesn't derive directly from that, given that at the point he appears in the chronology there's very little else in existence.

I don't know what all this makes Goldberry.

If the "natural" spot for the ball is covered, as you noted it was originally, then it moves to the next open spot for a non-red ball on the table in descending order.

So first, it would have gone to the pink spot, but that was taken, after that comes the blue which is in the center of the table. Since the blue was out of position, this is where the black was placed in this frame. However, if all of the spots were covered, then the black would be placed as close as possible to its "natural" spot. It would be placed on the direct line between the near cushion and that spot without touching the "covering" ball. If that wasn't possible it would be placed between its spot and the far cushion.

Is animated Ricky a descendant Fred Flintstone? Who knew?

I can never fathom why descendants of slaves aren't also incredibly pissed off at Africans. It was mostly Africans that captured, then sold them into slavery. Why do the one's that captured and sold them get a free pass, but the one's that bought them (and their descendants) are unforgiveable asshats for eternity? I just don't understand (and I'm not being silly or joking, I really don't get it).
I also have to agree, living in the past means you can't move on to the future. I feel it would be beneficial to forgive the dead their crimes, but not forget. I don't feel like this has happened to a large degree. When you hold onto anger, it usually only hurts yourself, the one's you're angry with usually don't know and often wouldn't care if they knew.
This is a different discussion from entrenched racism, which seems to be on the decline but is not yet absent. Sadly, it does seem that racism is on the rise and considered acceptable in much of the black community, and often excused with the ridiculous sentiment 'black people CAN'T be racist' which I like to counter with 'why not, they have a race don't they?'. (similar to the reply to 'you can't hit a girl in the face') :-}