Not only can a chimpanzee draw, but Congo the Chimpanzee had better art sales than 'Naked Ape' author (and artist) Desmond Morris, who put him up to it:

Ok then all we have to do to test this theory is take a chimp and fuse chromosome #13 together and we will create a human. I'm sure if it took millions of years to do by chance we would still see it occurring in nature with apes. Science is more than capable to do this now with the mapping of the human genome so lets see if they can make a human out of a monkey or will creation make a monkey out of the evolutionist?

Remember what Loki said to all the peeps in that Iron Man flick, enoch??...It's in our nature to bow-down and grab our ankles so we can be told what we a re supposed to do; Robotic apes can't help it, we're predictable creatures with shitty habits!

Sooooo...hesitant beating the term "paradigm" into oblivion, but until our collective way of being makes the next leap in societal/spiritual/biological evolution, the world is doomed to a continual cycle of power and resources consolidated and exploited by the few.
Our current archetypical criterion have been used as whips and chains, and the distillation or contamination knowledge has always wielded the most effective results for those who would dictate humanity's course.

In general I agree a person should [for their own sake at the very least] shut the fuck up and do as instructed by police.

However, that is secondary to the well-being of the [real or fictional] fetus in the suspect's womb.

Many people, regardless of race, gender, or station in life, have little control over their temper and go ape-shit nuts ignoring the authority of law enforcement. In 99% of the cases, I'd say the officer is right to tase or use force against the offender to achieve compliance, however this is the 1% where I feel someone has to be concerned with the safety of the unborn child.

Even if the mother is too dipshit crazy to be able to put her baby's safety ahead of her outrage, at least the sanity of an officer should come into play and beat her up in a way that they won't be jeopardizing the safety of the fetus.

Don't obey an officer's orders repeatedly and dare to resist? Get tased. Get wrestled to the ground. Get kneed in the back. Hell, even get into a choke hold.

But pregnant, unarmed, and presenting no physical threat? Break her arm and punch her in the face if you have to, officers. Just avoid the taser and physical trauma to the uterus region in general.

(I know; radicals will say the baby doesn't deserve to be born into the world with a mother who is too dipshit to obey officers, but I think it deserves a fair chance at life [or at least not to be potentially murdered for its mother's disobedience].)

I especially liked the part where it looked as if the bear was going to fight of the cameraman with the chair.
Holy crap, that's some amazing training. Planet of the apes my ass. Just wait until he learns to attach razorblades to that hoop, then we're all fucked.

Gibbons are apes, not monkeys.
...and it looks thoroughly confused not having any branches to grab onto. That thing will terrorize the house when it grows up.

No way dude-I try to stay away from the hairless, hind-brained apes as much as possible.

I miss it too. It was fun and engaging back in the day.



Anyway, on to this topic.

Your definition of "God" makes him capable, uniquely among all things in the universe, of proving his existence to a human. (What about me? Don't I prove my existence to you by communicating with you? Or if I showed up in your neighbourhood and had a beer with you, wouldn't that prove my existence? What do you mean, "only God can prove Himself"?)

At the same time, my definition of human --and I hope you agree on this-- includes that humans can be 100% convinced of false things. There is plenty of evidence of this in the many religions and folk beliefs of the world, as well as in mental health documentation and police records. Agreed? Assuming yes, it is fully consistent with your experience then that you SB could be 100% convinced of a false thing. You, as a human, are incapable of telling the difference between 100% conviction of a false thing, and 100% conviction of a true thing. The proof of this is that you are human, and people exist who 100% believe things that are incompatible with what you believe, so it must be possible for a human to 100% believe something false.

Well, let me connect the thoughts in these two paragraphs. You certainly do prove your existence to me by communicating with me. If you showed up in my neighborhood and we had a beer together(i dont drink but i would drink one with you), I would come away being 100 percent certain that you exist. I'm fairly sure you will agree that my certainty about your existence would be justified. Does this 100 percent certainty about your existence mean I could 100 percent prove it to someone else, or even to myself? Certainly not. No matter what evidence I had, even a video tape, someone could say that I am really just sea turtle dreaming this and none of it is real. Is that plausible? Not even remotely, but I couldn't disprove that hypothesis using evidence, empirical or otherwise.

So I think the disconnect here is that you are equating 100 percent certainty with 100 percent proof. Yes, it is technically true I could be a sea turtle dreaming all of this, and I could never disprove that, but I am 100 percent certain that isn't the case. To believe otherwise would make rational thought impossible. Therefore rationality is impossible without first assuming you are capable of rational thought. I have to believe this even though I cannot necessarily prove it. This poses a problem for the atheist. Essentially, all an atheist can say is that "my reasoning is sound because my reasoning says it is"..which begs the question as to why the chemical soup in the brain of an exalted ape fizzing a particular way should be called rationality. Whereas I can say that I am rational because I was created in the image of a rational being, God. Both arguments do use circular reasoning, but the atheist argument is viciously circular.

So, this comes to my point about my belief in God. To me, His existence has been sufficiently proven to the point where I can claim complete certainty, just as if we hung out together I would claim complete certainty that you exist. There is no real difference there and in fact, God has provided me better evidence of His existence because He is with me all of the time. whereas you could only be with me some of them time. I cannot prove to you that God is with me, or that He runs my life, but it doesn't diminish the reality of what He has proven to me.

So I think this leaves you in the position of having to claim that we can be certain of nothing, but in actuality the argument is self-defeating because it requires you to be certain of something (that nothing is certain). It's just the same as trying to claim that only relative truth exists ("is that absolutely true?") Otherwise you will have to say there is a possibility my certainty is justified.

Maybe there are no gods, or maybe I simply am not perceiving your Yahweh while he chooses not to directly reveal himself to me. Both conditions appear identical from my point of view, and I am incapable of telling which is true, so long as I don't perceive Yahweh.

I agree, and think about this. When I got saved I quickly realized that I had been living in an information bubble my entire life. Living in secular culture, you get confronted with this illusion which makes it seem like you have your finger on the pulse of reality. You are consuming all of this information about where we are, where we are headed, where the culture is, the scientific advances, the dreams and aspirations of those who think like you, and you get this sense of being connected to what is going on in planet Earth.

But what I found out is that this is all just basically confirmation bias. I thought that because I had an extremely wide feed and a diversity of interests that my filter was very nimble and narrow and was just sloughing off all of the trivial and non-essential things, when in fact the filter was wider than the feed and I was staring into a hall of mirrors. When that happens it means you are actually just consuming everything that mostly confirms what you already believe, such as what television shows and movies you watch, and what music you listen to, and what books you read. People also tend to hang out with people who think like they do. The seeming diversity of secular interests is actually a very narrow band which reflects very little truth so you end up in a little bubble (which seems like a Universe).

Both of our experiences with direct communication with gods are consistent with both of our beliefs (me: no contact => there are no gods or just no contact yet; you: contact => there is a god or you're wrong because you're human). The difference is that I freely admit that either is possible, while you insist that your view is correct. Get it?

To you either could be possible, because both experiences look the same to you. Whereas, to me only one is possible because the two experiences are alien to eachother. When you look at me, you have no way to tell the difference because you see no difference, therefore you allow the possibility. If you allow the possibility therefore, it isn't necessarily wrong to think that I am justified in believing I am right.

As for what I've said about Yahweh, you must be confusing me with someone else. I have never said I don't want him to reveal himself. I once, on your recommendation, got down on my knees and prayed for it, remember? I really, really, really want to understand the human condition and the true nature of the universe. If that includes the fact that Yahweh actually is our supreme being exactly as described in the Bible I would be very upset to learn that (just as I would be upset to find that I had been sold into slavery), but if that were the case, I'd want to know so I could make informed decisions for my future.

Yes, you're right, I think I did confuse you with someone else. Sorry about that.

I believe you when you say you just honestly want to know the truth, even if that truth wouldn't be pleasing to you. I think it reveals a lot about your character and the way that you think. I admire that kind of personal integrity.

Just before I became a Christian, when I found out that Jesus is the way God has chosen for us, I was resisting it because I knew that it meant that I had to stop living for me. I knew I was going to lose my right to my own personal autonomy and would have to place it in the care and trust of my Creator. What I found out though is that what I thought was freedom was slavery, and that the slavery I thought I was signing myself into was the true freedom. When you are born again, God makes you a new person and sets you free from all of the bondage of sin, and your present condition and your past suffering. This is literal and it is transformative. There is a tangible weight that lifts from your shoulders the moment you accept Christ and your sins are forgiven. It is a weight that is bowing you down all of your life. Everyone has their own theory about where the weight comes from..such as other people, the government, or even religion as some atheists like to think..but the weight is a spiritual weight stemming from the judgment against your sin. People become slaves of many things because they promise to remove that weight, but the weight always remains in the end because only God can set us free from it.

I do remember that prayer. One of the ways that God reveals Himself is through the reading of His word. Would you be willing to take it one step farther and read the gospel of John? I'm sure you've probably read it before, but this would be specifically for God to reveal Himself to you in a way that you can understand and relate to. You could pray before reading it..God, I once prayed for you to reveal yourself to me..I am asking that you do that through the reading of this book. Please help me understand what is being said and use it to give me revelation of your existence. Then read through it slowly..perhaps a chapter at a time, and going over each verse until you understand what it is saying. Pray each time before you read for revelation. I feel the Lord leading me to tell you this so I believe God will honor it and guide you.

In any case, it is good to talk to you again. God bless.

Yeah, but he didn't even consider letting the ape be the protagonist.
Sure!... let's keep on reinforcing the same old stereotypes so that our children never have to deal with an inconvenient notion like 'equality'.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Orang Utan, Nonja, faces, newborn, Sophia, baby, look, window, see, zoo, orangutan, ape' to 'Orang Utan, Nonja, faces, newborn, Sophia, baby, look, window, zoo, orangutan, ape, meets' - edited by Fusionaut

I think as a former Creationist (old earth creationist, the idiocy of young earth creationist stunned me, for the Earth to be 6,000-10,000 years old would require God purposely setup evidence to prove it wasn't that old, which some dismiss as "God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise") I can speak to the problem here is that Christian and right wing media reinforce certain key thoughts that keep a Christian from understanding or accepting even the basics of the theory. You can get them to understand evolution is why you need a new flu shot each year, or why pesticides stop working after a time, but they think that is a different type of evolution. The image painted in the mind of a creationist is that one day in the African plains an ape or monkey was having a baby, and rather than be an ape or monkey it was a human... and that somewhere nearby another ape/monkey had to have another human for them to mate and continue offspring... there is no understanding of the scale and time involved to get from A to Z... they think that the A to Z is the same as A to B and ignore B to Y in the evolutionary timeline. They also misuse the word evolution to apply to the big bang and abiogenesis ("see they use the biblical word Genesis too") as that is what is reinforced again and again. They are reinforced to misunderstand the word "theory" to think it is just a random guess... and make no mistake, the fact that the word theory doesn't mean a guess/idea and that evolution doesn't go from A to Z without going through B-Y first has been made clear to those who teach creationism, but they don't care, there is money to be made in deluding the church goers into holding onto the old ignorance, rather than embrace the truth... of course then you run the risk of some of them learning the truth and then going "I wonder what the hell else they lied to me about..." but most never will open their minds to the concept that even if God is real, perhaps the creation account and great flood are not literal events, but parables intended to teach a lesson...

Yeah, it was meant to be F1 cars; but Bernie Ecclestone (F1 commercial rights holder) decided against it, as he thought Stallone would give F1 a bad name.

He was right: It earned seven nominations at the 22nd Golden Raspberry Awards, including Worst Picture, Worst Director, Worst Screenplay, Worst Screen Couple (Burt Reynolds and Sylvester Stallone) and twice for Worst Supporting Actor (Reynolds and Stallone), with Estella Warren winning Worst Supporting Actress (also for Planet of the Apes).

List of F1, Indy car and CART drivers in the film:
Jean Alesi
Michael Andretti
Kenny Bräck
Patrick Carpentier
Cristiano Da Matta
Adrian Fernández
Christian Fittipaldi
Dario Franchitti
Luiz Garcia Jr.
Mauricio Gugelmin
Michel Jourdain Jr.
Tony Kanaan
Juan Pablo Montoya
Roberto Moreno
Max Papis
Oriol Servia
Alex Tagliani
Paul Tracy
Jimmy Vasser
Jacques Villeneuve


Here is an Excelent Racing movie: Grand Prix (1966)

It won the Academy Award Oscar for: Best Effects / Sound Effects, Best Film Editing, Best Sound in 1967.

It's the only Official F1 movie. The sound is quite incredibly. There is a scene in the movie; as they race around the streets of Monaco, with a Panavision 65mm camera strapped to the hood of the car.

All the best,
ZDM

I don't have a problem with his statement-Though cliched to a degree the point is obvious and from the looks of your rant you've got personal issues with this user or his simplified statement of what should be obvious to anyone with a larger proportion of neocortex, with disproportionate enlargement of pre-frontal and temporal association cortices than lower apes.

"I love to eat it everyday, and if you ask me why I'll saaaaaaaayyyyyy...!" (fill in the last line with more baloney!)

AND...
Watch all the classic geek movies and TV.

Dark Crystal, Labyrinth, Never Ending Story(s), Princes Bride, LOTR, Planet of the Apes, So much more - too much to list, but you get the idea

But don't ignore the new stuff!!!
Eventualy they will be telling you what is cool so be ready to get interested in the stuff they bring to you.