Because they're crazy, emotionally-dependent, and in their own little reality-tunnels. Can almost guarantee it's not because they are practicing Buddhists or Hare Krishna.

John Lewis - The Bear & The Hare from Blink on Vimeo.

Mystery solved, it's a "black sea hare".

Wikipedia

Youtube

..oh.. okay, thank you for telling me about the sea hare, just please don't hurt me, narrator!

Looks more like "dodge hare" to me

Whew that must stink. I just can't stand the smell of burnt hare.

Hare, not rabbit.

>> ^oritteropo:

The list is:
10. Felix the cat
9. Krazy Kreatures
8. Joe & Mac (Arcade conversion)
7. Xexyz
6. New Ghostbusters 2 (best Ghostbusters on NES)
5. Clash at Demonhead
4. Action in New York
3. Gun Nac
2. Bucky O'hare
1. The Guardian Legend
NSFW??????


I guess he didn't cuss this time. He always does in his videos.

The list is:

10. Felix the cat
9. Krazy Kreatures
8. Joe & Mac (Arcade conversion)
7. Xexyz
6. New Ghostbusters 2 (best Ghostbusters on NES)
5. Clash at Demonhead
4. Action in New York
3. Gun Nac
2. Bucky O'hare
1. The Guardian Legend

NSFW??????

Burning Hair Hare... Haaaahhahhhahhhhahhhhhhh.....

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

The problem with your theory is, I have done the research, and I do know what the source material says. I understand the theory of evolution better than most atheists I have met. I use the quotations because they are hostile witnesses to my position which gives the argument even more force. It doesn't matter where I've gotten them from; that is irrelevent. The evidence I am presenting is what is relevent.

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

Most atheists I've spoken to who criticize the bible haven't actually read it. I've already told you my background so you don't have an argument. I have studied these things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

You haven't offered any criticism of my position and you haven't demonstrated any actual knowledge of this subject, except that which is patently false. The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, including biological systems. Evolutionists attempt to weasel out of that by declaring that they are 'open systems' and thus immune to entropy because of the energy from the sun, but as I showed this does nothing to show where information comes from, so you cannot explain it away.

I've read a lot of science textbooks, and a lot of scientific literature. When I was agnostic, I read volumes and volumes of it, and I stay abreast of the latest discoveries. Your accusations all ring hollow, especially considering you have failed to show you understand the subject on your own.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

What you're doing is using a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. You're absolutely right, that is a terrible argument. That isn't the type of argument I have made. When I brought up thermodynamics, I was responding to this comment:

"The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science."

I showed it was your position that was betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science. My argument was rational, well founded, and based on solid evidence, yet you have taken the low road of trying to assasinate my character, or outright say that I don't actually know what I am talking about. Again, it is you who have failed to adaquately demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Instead of addressing my argument, you have made the argument about me, as you have admitted to, and that is what is dishonest here.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

It's called confirmation bias. A good example of this is looking at the question of the origin of life and believing it must have evolved despite having no actual evidence that it did.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

Science is an institution run by individuals with individual beliefs and goals. Over 40 percent of biologists, astronomers and mathematicians believe in God. Belief in God is not incompatible with doing good science, nor is science in and of itself something bad. There is however a concerted effort, on the part of evolutionists, to push their version of origins on the rest of us, and they have often used legal means to do so. Evolution is pushed on the public like it is a proven fact and it is not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

What you're doing is jumping to a bunch of unfounded conclusions and drawing extremely weak inferences about what I have or haven't done, and then extrapolating that to a bunch of highly prejudiced judgements against me personally, and doing so in a haughty way, as if you are talking to a child. You have completely failed to include anything of substance in this reply. It is all just a sad attempt to write me off without actually addressing any of my arguments. Until you actually address the meat of my reply with a point by point refutation, this entire reply can be chopped up to one gigantic ad hom.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

Or you have completely mischaracterized me, as I have demonstrated. Again, you want so badly for this to be about me. Even if I was doing everything you said I am doing, my arguments, if they were accurate, would still stand. You haven't moved one inch closer to disproving anything I've said. It doesn't matter where I've gotten the information, what matters is if it is correct or not. Regardless, I do understand the subject matter, and demonstrably better than you do thus far.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

You aren't going to change anyones mind with this low grade excuse for an argument. This isn't about me, it's about the evidence. You say my evidence is invalid because I don't understand the subject matter, which is fallacious. The evidence is valid whether I understand it or not. However, I do understand it, and the problem here is you have no basis to criticize me because you're the one who hasn't demonstrated any understanding. You have even demonstrated the wrong understanding. However, the difference between you and I is that I will give you enough credit to assume you are a reasonably intelligent person who isn't just pretending to understand it. I am still waiting for you to prove it, however. Your attempt to make this argument about me has failed, because I have shown all of your claims about me to be false, and it is logically fallacious in the first place. If you want to continue, address my arguments directly and prove you actually know something. If my arguments are incorrect, feel free to show me why, at any time.


>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

>> ^shinyblurry:

My mistake about the numbers. It's 1%, or 70,000,000 people (every website I went to had the same number, so I'm sure you can find it yourself).

There's no context and no references there, but to me it means psychopaths are aware society holds there to be a difference between right actions and and wrong actions, not that they themselves feel it's wrong, as evidenced by the lack of empathy, which is how the rest of us perceive moral values. That's just because I've done some casual reading about psychopathy in the past, not because I remember that statement clearly. If Hare or someone like that ever clearly stated that psychopaths are innately aware of what's right and wrong, then I'll drop my point. But I don't see how someone could feel something is wrong if they are unable to empathetically perceive how it hurts someone else.>> ^shinyblurry:

10 percent of the worlds population are psychopaths? Have any evidence for this claim? In any case, you're wrong. Even psychopaths know good from evil:
"Psychopaths have a total lack of remorse for the abuses they commit. They generally know the difference between right and wrong, but they do not care."

via Google Translate:

if the police passes by, yes! yes
I then stop only at times, yes! yes
ne of the box from participating Ziese, yes! yes
and harmless to play on schematic f, yes! yes
they have been drinking, yes! yes
The police asked me, yes! yes
I scream out loud, no, yes! yes
I'm thirsty animal, yes! yes
they have taken drugs, yes! yes
but since I have an idea, yes! yes
home on the couch, yes! yes
I'm all there, yes! yes

a policeman with elf-Ohrn, yes
with these elves Ohrn what he writes on ..
a policeman with elf-Ohrn
with these elves Ohrn what he writes on ..

my name is Garfield, yes! yes
I've always been there, yes! yes
and now I'm here, yes! yes
and you are there, yes! yes
we are both there, yes! yes
together in the universe, yes! yes
together with the police, yes! yes
I tell him what he of sage, yes! yes
eucalyptus and menthol, yes! yes
I am innocent, yes! yes
manitu like, yes! yes
that's the killa, yeah! yes

a policeman with patterns on it, yes
with these patterns on it, he looks good ..
one policeman, with patterns on it yes
with these patterns on it, he looks good ..

`I'll help arrested, yes! yes
I just stick it there, yes! yes
shiva help me, help me to goa, yes! yes
psytrance help me, yes! yes
goa goa goa mpu, yes! yes
u u u u u goa-dwarf, yes! yes
goa goa goa mpu, yes! yes
u u u u u hara rama, yes! yes
suddenly lit me a pig, indeed! yes
in your face in, yes! yes
far too bright the sunshine, yes! yes
I hurry up to the eyes, yes! yes

a policeman with a laser sword, yes
laser sword with which he writes on this .. ahh
with a police laser sword
laser sword with which he writes on this ..

a smile comes from the heart high, yes! yes
yes by a ridiculously tuenchamun,! yes
ick bin tuenchamun, yes! yes
tut tut tut tut, yes! yes
I stick, yes! yes
I stick with doing nothing, yes! yes
tut tut tuenchamun, yes! yes
I've found it, yes! yes
Last night in the car, yes! yes
since I'm looking at you, yes! yes
I need urgent help, yes! yes
in the car always runs goa, yes! yes

cop off with one claw, yes
with these claws turn what he stands for ..
a policeman, so off with claws
cling to it with this, even what he stands for ..

Parchim gibts ne police, yes! yes
I only go driving times, yes! yes
mentally I'm already there, yes! yes
moon by the time the liquid shiva, yes! yes
of the full moon up to the Baltic Sea, indeed! yes
of the reeperbahn back home, yeah! yes
in the hall eingepennt shit, yes! yes
the problem in the system, yes! yes
is the system, yes! yes
the system is the problem, yes! yes
the system has no egg, yes! yes
the system is in the system, yes! yes
I have no problem, yes! yes
I'm schizophrenic, yes! yes
I am the system, yes! yes

a policeman standing there with his parents
with his parents (because) he wants to go home ..
one policeman stands with his parents since aaahhh ...
uuuhhh with his parents ... He wants to house ..

I'm strapped in, yes! yes
I weggeknallt I am, yes! yes
I have a crush me, yes! yes
I'm not there, yes! yes
ick'm uh .. mirage, yes! yes
all the stupid pig, indeed! yes
All the boring pigs, yes! yes
walk on a leash, yes! yes
boring all the pigs, yes! yes
hear no goa, yes! ahh ..
goa goa .. hhh, ahh ..
hare hare rama, yes! a..
hare hare goa, yes! aahh ..
hare hare rama, yes! ahh
goa goa hare,
hare

Haha! Must be an Anime fan. Most of his moves are from the ending theme (Hare Hare Yukai) of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. This guy is my new hero.