>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Dread:
One of (if not the top) killers of people in Africa. Incredibly territorial, they have been known to wipe out entire boats of tourists.
I once found myself starring into the jaws of one from the bow of a little aluminum fishing boat... I don't even recall my father yelling (or my grandfather laughing, he was crazy though) I was so scared.

Yeah it's the top killer in Africa of Humans...besides mosquitoes but nothing compares to those.
I don't know why they're soo scared, it's just death...accept it.

I thought Buffalo were the most dangerous. Natives call them "Black Death". But yeah. Hippos are scary. They can actually run faster than a human, they weigh more than a couple of small cars and their skin is 2 inches thick. Oh, and they can snap bones like twigs with their jaws.

well he didnt seem to treat it with anything so pretty much after a few sessions of the shade heating up and cooling down, its gonna warp like crazy. Oh and dont you dare put any pressure on it, it will snap like a twig. A whole log, wasted. Id much rather stick with either a treated finished strip of wood, or hell just give me a nice looking fake.. its a freaking lamp shade.

Nice selective quoting.

"The classical (Roman) writers affirm that they offered on great occasions human sacrifices; as for success in war or for relief from dangerous diseases. Cæsar has given a detailed account of the manner in which this was done. "They have images of immense size, the limbs of which are framed with twisted twigs and filled with living persons. These being set on fire, those within are encompassed by the flames." Many attempts have been made by Celtic writers to shake the testimony of the Roman historians to this fact, but without success."

We have no reason to doubt the testimony of their contemporaries. And if you want more evidence, how about national geographic:

Druids Committed Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090320-druids-sacrifice-cannibalism.html

It's actually far worse than I thought. Far from a quaint little holiday where people mourned the dead, it was sick pagan bloodbath.

What's clear is that you're more interested in a convenient truth;; you said it yourself, you skim over the evidence in apathy, and just want to believe what you want. Doesn't change the facts though; Halloween celebrates an evil day where a bunch of savages worshipped demons, sacrificed human beings and apparently ate their flesh. I'm sorry, but there is nothing there for Christians to celebrate. Pat Robertson is 100 percent correct.

>> ^pho3n1x:
Show me where, in your first link, it mentions human sacrifice...
Instead, don't. I'll quote it for you:
That the Druids offered sacrifices to their deity there can be no doubt. But there is some uncertainty as to what they offered, and of the ceremonies connected with their religious services we know almost nothing.
Also, quoting the other article you mentioned regarding bonfires:
It comes from the contraction of bone fire, where the Celts used to burn animal bones to ward off evil spirits.
Try harder.
--
Catholic Mass, to my knowledge, is not based on pagan sacrifice at all, but rather using bread and wine as a "bloodless" sacrifice honoring the crucifixion of Christ. Granted, I only skimmed the articles because I'm not really that interested in the whole ordeal, but it seems to me like you don't like to read anything other than the pamphlets your church of choice provides about each secular holiday anyway, so I'm probably just wasting my time.
You can believe what you want to believe, let me believe what I want to believe.
--
Religion is like a penis.
It's awesome that you have one.
It's awesome that you're proud of it.
But please stop whipping it out and waving it around in public.
It's not any better or more important than mine.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Druids worshipped baal, engaged in human sacrifice:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_bulfinch_chxlia.htm\

This was not a wholesome little get together, and it did involve blood sacrifice. The root of bonfire is "bonefire" http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_origin_of_the_word_bonfire
No, not all spirits are demons; God is a spirit, and angels are spirits. Yet, many people have this idea of a dichotomy between "good" spirits and evil spirits, but in reality they're almost all evil spirits. Any spirit not sent by God is a demon. Spirits impersonating the dead are demons, spirits which claim to be other gods are demons, the spirits people channel are demons, etc. The astral realm is owned by Satan and populated by demons pretending to be every kind of fantasy someone could imagine, and many people wouldn't. There is no Goddess, there are no ghosts, there aren't any of these psychic manifestations. It all stems from Satan. Satan is a being, not a concept, as real as you and me, and he is the deceiver of this entire world.
I agree, Catholic mass is sacrifice, because it is pagan ritual the church took on as its own. It has nothing to do with God, but it does represent the union of the sun and moon, as per babylonian mystery religions.
By and large, people who practice sorcery, divination, channeling, "psychic" abilities, and the like are all doing Satans will. They all come out in droves to celebrate this evil day, to worship other gods and practice their witchcraft; basically to do all the things which God commanded us not to do. The only involvement Christians should have on this is to pray for those who are deceived.
>> ^pho3n1x:
I think you're misconstruing the use of the word "sacrifice" to summon imagery of blood sacrifice (ie Indiana Jones).
Not all sacrifice is macabre or evil. Catholic Mass is a sacrifice.
I've not read a single source regarding Samhain/Halloween/All Saints Eve, even one from "your side" of the argument, that alludes to human sacrifice.
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Projects/Reln91/Blood/s
acrificemainpage.htm
Besides, "pagan" is a blanket term. The ones you are trying to illustrate are Druids. They would make animal sacrifices, which were then immediately consumed as part of the festival.
Satan does not exist in the religion which you are misunderstanding. Satan is a Christian idea.
And I still assert that spirits are not all demons. Is the Holy Spirit a demon?
Before you try to correct me, I also have a lot of personal experience in these matters, and I know that there are some misguided individuals. By and large though, "pagan" religions (as paganism is not in-and-of-itself a religion) do not share these views and simply see the matter for what it is. Animals and crops are harvested for the coming winter, and tribute is paid to "the death of a god", not to "a god of death".

Ah yes, we can't have a nuanced approach to anything can we?

All we can have are two camps screaming at each other across a divide.
"You can't use faggot!! Ever!!"
"Fuck you! stop oppressing my right to be a dick!"

The word faggot actually means a bundle of twigs. That's it, no more no less.

Context is everything. I will frequently describe things as "gay". It's not grown-up or mature, but I don't particularly want to spend my life being grown-up and mature all the time.

Now, there's a world of difference between me calling a friend "gay" when he pussies out of something (yeah, that term too*), and holding up a sign that says "god hates fags". One is affectionate (not that affectionate! ), the other is hateful.

"Cunt" is considered just about the most pejorative term in the english language, but it's frequently used a term of endearment where I grew up (west of ireland, we swear. a lot.) See black guys calling each other nigger.

Again, context. I would never call someone I didn't know a "cunt" or a "fag" as an insult, and if I saw someone doing it, I'd call them on it.

* if I can use "cock" as a swear, I fail to see why I can't use "pussy".

>> ^chilaxe:

@Lawdeedaw
If eating a candy bar was all he needed, then this appears to have been a preventable medical issue.


Working with many diabetics, it is true that the shock is usually no surprise when it comes. However, there are exceptions. And the results surprise others (One snapped the wrist of a co-worker like a twig because he was convulsing and she tried to help him not bang his head.)

Saying that, he should have had candy nearby at the very least. If he did, well, and it was a quick hit, then he did everything right. But I won't judge.

>> ^bareboards2:

True. But not the first few moments, yeah?

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Misnomer; should be: Women of rich husbands/fathers through the ages, at least the first two thirds. (I'm just saying this to go against the romanticised notion conveyed in this video that women of the past wore nice dresses and jewellery. Just as today, only accurate for a very small percentage.)



hehe, yeah. Although... twigs and moss and curiously absent

Damn GIGO rearing its ugly head...more spresso.

Going to be tasting fish all day again. Pass the twigs and leaves please.

*promote

Big deal, 1st graders make batteries out of freaking potatoes. You don't know what it was used for or what specific purpose it was created for. That does not mean that it was a battery in the sense that you mean it.

You're stretching the "computer" a little bit, while technically the object in question "might have" been a computer, so is an abacus, and we don't get all up in arms over those.

What then? A drawing that looks like a helicopter? Give me a break, one drawing that looks like something does not a theory make.

Those gold items of jewelry? You saw quite clearly in the history channel video that the "model" the guy built was, speaking in terms of aeronautics, totally different. The cylinder that ran the whole length of the piece of jewelry needed to be thinned out on the flying model until it was just a twig where it met the tail. Again, speaking in terms of aeronautics, that's WAAAAY different. Don't you think it might be a more acceptable theory to say that it's a piece of jewelry that merely resembles a modern airplane? Wait, what am I saying, it's not a theory, because the fact that two pieces of jewelry that happen to look like something else does not make a theory.

Either way, science is full of anomalies, that's because science can't explain everything. Because rational people don't expect it to. Don't apply the omniscient, omnipotent aspects of god to science, because they don't make any rational sense there either.

Shit, I just have to say that watching this terrible video with this annoying used car salesmen was one of the hardest things I've done all week. And it proves nothing. This guy is just cherry picking from ideas that his poor warped brain does not have the ability to comprehend.

I'm not avoiding science because I don't accept this guy's premise. This guy is avoiding science by proposing it.

I'm not sure how you see yourself as any less dogmatic than I am..and Im sorry for making you sad. I hope that you haven't wasted too many kleenexs on me, but save them for yourself..you'll need them when you figure out evolution is wrong.

Here is the key portion of your wiki article:

"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor"

What we see in the fossil record is that when something new shows up its all at once and is fully formed and then never changes. Ie, no true transitionals have ever been discovered. What has never been witnessed in the fossil record is steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different.

You think this is a gap? It's a super massive black hole, and the vacuum may be in your head if you believe it. Here's some info:

John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.

The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.

I think you're the one who needs to re-evaluate your beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6EiN-3uWak




>> ^Skeeve:
>> ^shinyblurry:
the bar is still incredibly low..one of the best transitional forms out there is based on a whales nostril..i would find that embarassing if i believed in evolution. show me something convincing. also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
You've said that you aren't ignorant of science, yet you ignore the science that proves these things. You, and people like you, are not really interested in the facts, you are interested in finding all the gaps so you can point and say "aha, there is a god!" I am truly saddened by people like you - it breaks my heart that you can be so smart and so blind at the same time.
But you asked for yet more proof so I am at your service.
A (comparatively) short list of transitional forms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
As for the claim that mutations not increasing information in a genome:
"We have observed the evolution of
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."
You can look up those scholarly articles if you actually don't want to remain ignorant. They are listed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

You'd think she'd twig to it eventually. That was amazing. Into the eye, out of the mouth, no brain involvement at all!

>> ^doogle:

"get a fork and a lasso" haha


Its not what you think. He's getting all MacGyver. 1 Fork, 1 Lasso, 1 Electric Eel corpse, 31 twigs = A-Bomb

I guess those are what city folk refer to as "branches", they're called twigs outside of town.

Now that he can snap your back like a twig, you BETTER hope he remembers you as the Man in the Yellow Hat. If you look anything like that dude last week with the gun...

Better just hope it doesn't snap like a twig.

Hard Twig is a Zebra Finches Heavy Metal