Online BS in Religion!! LMAO!

Want to be a minister? Get yourself an online BS in religion from Liberty U and prepare yourself for a life in the ministry!!!!

This is way too funny, even in just a light hearted sort of way. I mean, really, even a devout theist should be able to chuckle at this.

On the Impossibility of the Noah's Ark Tale

Noah's Ark. The fable of a 600 or so year old man taking two of every species of non human animal, placing them on a giant wooden boat which he built, and surviving a global flood perpetuated by an angry, omniscient (wait, but if he's omnisc- I know, I know.....just forget it) aboard this giant ship. A silly tale that the majority of Christians have had to admit could never have happened. Yet, and maybe you have to admire their tenacity, there are still those who cling tight to this tale like Noah clinging tight to the sides of his ship as it rocked violently in the ravaging waters that covered the entire (flat, according to the Bible, the greatest science book of all time) Earth.

Guess what people?

It could never have happened.

There are a multitiude of reasons why this is so, and we've all heard several of them. I'm sure most, if not all of those who believe that this tale is literally true or at least profess to) have heard several of them. They probably have a fair amount of practice defending the story against these claims. Hell, Noah's Ark apologist could probably qualify as being resume worthy for some of these people.

Well, get ready to sharpen your apologist skills, because I've got more for ya'!

Now, before I get to the meat of this, let me quickly run through some of the most common, classic arguments as to why this story could not possibly have happened.

• No one could live to be almost a thousand years old. It's not possible.
• There's no way a wooden boat of that size would have been built (by one guy!!), let alone functional.
• How, exactly, did he acquire two of every species, from all across the Earth?
• How did these species survive? What did they eat? What did the carnivores eat? The anteaters?
• What about the climactic requirements these animals had (have)? There are some species that require 100% (or near 100%) humidity to survive (cave dwellers).
• Not a single one of these animals, insects, etc died aboard this ship?

And so on, and so forth.

That alone should suffice, really. I mean, come on, my 18 month old daughter wouldn't buy this shit. But no, I must press onwards.....dare I say, atheist soldier? (oh take a joke).


Fine, let's kick this into overdrive.

1. Everything alive would have suffocated. How could they breathe with all of the plants on earth dead?
2. There's not enough water on the planet to flood the entire Earth up to the highest mountain peaks.
3. The ice caps would not exist in their current form, as there would not have been enough time for them to form in this climate. They would have to form, as the buoyancy of the water would have floated the polar caps off their beds and caused them to break apart. The climate in the last 5000 years has been too warm for the ice caps to have reformed to their current size and density.
4. If the entire Earth flooded, that would mean that salt and freshwater mixed together. This would have resulted in the salination of ALL the water on Earth. There are fish, coral reef and plants who NEED fresh water to survive, and there are fish, coral reef and plants who NEED salt water to survive. This would have resulted in catastrophe for plants, coral reef and fish. These are mutually exclusive inhabitants. They wouldn't survive in a planet with consisted of nothing but salinated water.
5. Absolutely no evidence of a flood in tree ring data.
6. Unequal mountain erosion? How?
7. Ice cores from Greenland contain no layer of sediments, which you would have seen if the entire planet had been flooded. The salinity levels never changed.
8. Egyptian civilization was in full swing during this time, building pyramids, living life. No great extinction, and not one mention of a global flood. Huh.
9. So, since all of the plants would have died due to being flooded with salinated water (not that the salinity actually matters, being flooded with water alone would do it), aside from the suffocation issue, how exactly did the herbivores survive once the flood was over? What did they eat?

Don't trust science? Okay........How about Genesis itself?

Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood. How, in 110-150 years, did the human population grow large enough to build this tower.....and an entire city around it?

And of course, in addition to this, there needed to be enough people to build the aforementioned Pyramids,  and populate the rest of the world, which we know had people spread out far and wide, due to historical records.

You can be a Christian all you want, but at least have the courage to admit that the Noah's Ark tale is just that. A tale, and a laughable one at that. Hearing grown adults actually trying to posit that it actually transpired, and even coming up with such insipid apologist arguments such as the water canopy defense, as I call it, is frankly fucking sad and pathetic. They sound like 4 year olds.

Your Christianity doesn't make you sound ridiculous (at least not overly so). Your literal belief in every facet of the bible does. Stop denying reality and step just a tad bit forward into the light. It was called the Enlightenment for a reason.

Dare I say, Amen?

I am now officially a Master Ninja! (Again)

This is a follow up to This Post

I am now officially a master ninja (second time, as I bested NGB on MN as well)!!

That is all. Now Ninja Gaiden II can go fuck itself for a while. I need a break.....but will I take it? I dunno. Probably not....*sigh*

It's a love/hate thing.

Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism

From wiki (link above):

Anthropocentrism is either the belief that humans are the central and most significant entities in the universe, or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective.[1] The term can be used interchangeably with humanocentrism, while the first concept can also be referred to as human supremacy. The views are especially associated with certain religious cultures.

I think of anthropocentrism when I have discussions with theists regarding evolution. There are a number of traits that exist (like intellect, speed, strength, climbing ability, climate adaptability, etc), and we are the best, for all intents and purposes, at some of them, but lacking in others. These traits allow different species to adapt and excell in different ways. There's no right or wrong. There's no superior or inferior. It's all about adaptation, propagation, and survival.

Yet people hold our specific attributes to such a high regard, and really, I find that to be nothing but anthropocentrism. I don't see the justification for the view that we are superior. Our intellect is as useful to us as is the ability to play dead, pose as a log, camoflouge oneself like chameleons do, etc to other species. Yet people state that we're so superior, and they use intellect, the thing that we happen to possess (convenient, much?), as the indicator of this.

To me, this is just a self serving viwepoint, borne of a pre-existing idea, and supported by taking one attribute from a field of many equally useful (in the right circumstances) ones and arbitrarily proclaiming that particular attribute to be of the utmost importance or usefulness. And why is this determination made? How is it supported? Why? Because we possess that trait!!! Isn't that just wonderfully circular?

It's circular, it's self serving. It's anthropocentric.

At least in my view. Feel free to disagree (or heap praise upon me!).

Started Playing Ninja Gaiden II Again

After a few succesive events transpiring to take me away from the game (my disappointment with it, frustration, and having a kid) for many months, I decided I could not leave my near year old Path of the Master Ninja (hardest difficulty....very, very hard) playthrough just sitting there; I had to finish the damn thing.


And so, after several months away from Ninja Gaiden I jumped back in. The smart thing to do would be to start up a Path of the Warrior (normal difficulty) playthrough, get some practice in, right? Seeing as how this game on its hardest difficulty is notoriously difficult, it would be stupid to jump right into the hardest difficulty, and no on in their right mind would do so....right?

Ha! I jumped right back into Path of the Master Ninja (POTMN or MN as I refer to it). What a DUMB thing to do. So depressing to see how far I had fallen :(

I spent a good few hours getting my ass kicked and wanting to throw my tv through the window.

So, after a bunch of frustration and laughter, I finally strarted to feel a tiny bit of the old fire, and I have managed to get to Chapter 4 in a couple of days. I'm now at the first save in that Chapter, and it's coming back......slowly.....I have to say I am still dying FAR TOO OFTEN. I swear I have died at least 100 times in the last three Chapters. :(

So, with much frustration, and doing it in the dumbest way possible (lol) I WILL finally finish this damn thing.

And then, the REAL fun begins.

You see, Ninja Gaiden II's older brother is the far superior Ninja Gaiden Black. And to Ninja Gaiden Black, my belovded frined and favorite game ever, I have a message:

I miss you old friend.

When I am done with your younger, more stupid, more irritating brother's hardest difficulty, I promise to return to you. I miss you and your nuanced perfection. Your glorious design, your incredible balance. I'll have to start over, since my old xbox is gone, and I don't have the time for you I once had, but one day, one day I promise to get back to that 22,000,000 MM score and finally break 30million.


If it's the last thing I do.

Thought Experiment. Viewer Participation Required!

I'm looking for some people to 'play along' here.

Here's the video description:

This video requires viewer participation!!



This is an older video that's been sitting on my HDD for 2-3 months. I could never upload it because I wouldn't have garnered enough of a response with it, and I am worried that this still might be premature, but, having now topped the 100 subscriber mark (thanks to you all), I thought that perhaps I'd have enough people seeing it to get a few solid responses.


I hope. If not, well, I'll take it down and reuplaod in a year when I have 300 subs ;)


Sorry for the mediocre vid quality.

The Evolution of Freddy Krueger CAST YOUR VOTE!!

Freddy Krueger has seen changes in his look ranging from slight alterations to drastic overhauls in his look since 1984's seminal A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Let's have a look at how the dream demon changed, shall we? Check the pics below, then vote in the 2 polls beneath the pics!!

A Nightmare on Elm Street

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare

Wes Craven's New Nightmare

Freddy Vs Jason

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) (the unnecessary remake)

I guess as the host of this game, I should go first. So, before you all have to vote, I'll throw my neck out there :)

Well, as much as I HATE to vote against my favorite Nightmare film (the original, of course, although DW and WCNN are excellent), and I honestly really do mean HATE, (it's not hyperbole in the least), I have to vote for the aesthetic design featured in Wes Craven's New Nightmare. While the burn look has been replaced with more of a peeled look, he looks so fucking menacing, and, perhaps more importantly (well, okay not more) is the fact that he looks old, and that's what Craven had envisioned for the character to begin with. He looks old and haggard, and that just adds to the sinister nature of the character. Then you toss in the AMAZING looking, much more organic, ''bone claw'' as I like to call it, the added thumb blade (dexterity be damned), and the trenchcoat, and you have yourself the hobo from HELL. And I think that's exactly what Craven had in mind from the start, based on his childhood encounter.

As for the one I like the least (actually, I HATE this look), as much as I really don't like what they did to him in Freddy's Dead (seriously, the actually aimed to make him less scary, and well, they suceeded....he looks like he's been rubberized) I am going to have to vote for (surprise surprise) the remake's take on it. Just......what the fuck. He looks like a blob of shit, and I say realism be damned (no offense to real burn victims, I cannot even begin to imagine the horror). I want a demonic looking Krueger, not one who just came off the operating table where they did skin grafts.

The Freddy Krueger Look You Prefer?

The Freddy Krueger Look You Like the Least?