Most popular posts in 'Childlike' category.
Archive for the 'Childlike' Category
Another post for my own future reference… Sermon illustrations?
http://www.nfb.ca/animation/objanim/en/index.php
Popularity: 8% [?]
Charlie has gotten me hooked on paper airplanes again. As a kid, I used to make hundreds of them. My friend had a book with what must have been 50 designes, and we memorized them all. I can still remember some of them, but there are others I can’t remember at all.
Anyway, as I’ve gotten back into it, I’ve found a couple great sites online, and I thought I’d post the links here for myself and for anyone else who might be interested.
- Jim Cornish’s Web Index
- Alex’s Paper Airplanes
- Joseph Palmer’s Paper Airplanes
- Origami Airplanes
- Sabertooth Paper Airplane <– You have to try this one!
Popularity: 8% [?]
Charlie loves mazes, and I think he is doing incredibly well. Here’s one he recently did (remember that he’s only 6!)
We’ve been making our mazes by using the tool at this website.
Popularity: 11% [?]
I continue to be impressed with Charlie’s ability to put these things together. This one is better than some of mine!
Popularity: 9% [?]
Charlie has been getting into stop motion animation, and I think this one is one of his best. NOTE: This video was made from pictures taken ENTIRELY by him. I wasn’t even watching him do it. Of course, I did the computer work to put it into a movie, but he took all the pictures himself.
When one car causes another to crash, a helpful Jedi Knight arrives to save the day by using the force.
Popularity: 8% [?]
The following in an excerpt from a children’s book, Captain Underpants. And the Perilous Plot of Professor Poopypants by Dave Pilkey. The evil Professor forces everyone to assume new names…
Use the third letter of your first name to determine your new first name:
a = snickle b = doombah c = goober d = cheesey e = crusty f = greasy g = dumbo h = farcus i = dorky j = doofus k = funky l = boobie m = sleezy n = sloopy o = fluffy p = stinky q = slimy r = dorfus s = snooty t = tootsie u = dipsy v = sneezy w = liver x = skippy y = dinky z = zippy
Use the second letter of your last name to determine the first half of your new last name:
a = dippin b = feather c = giggle d = burger e = chicken f = barffy g = lizard h = waffle i = farkle j = monkey k = flippin l = fricken m = bubble n = rhino o = potty p = hamster q = buckle r = gizzard s = lickin t = snickle u = chuckle v = pickle w = hubble x = dingle y = gorilla z = girdle
Use the third letter of your last name to determine the second half of your new last name:
a = butt b = boob c = face d = nose e = hump f = breath g = pants h = shorts i = lips j = honker k = head l = tush m = chunks n = dunkin o = brains p = biscuits q = toes r = doodle s = fanny t = sniffer u = sprinkles v = frack w = squirt x = humperdinck y = hiney z = juice
Thus, for example, George W. Bush’s new name is Fluffy Chucklefanny. Now when you comment on this, be sure to include your new name!
Popularity: 6% [?]
"Our biochemistry is about 97% the same as a mouse.
Our biochemistry is about 50% the same as a banana.
Human Cytochrom 'C' is closest to that of a sunflower.
Human eyes are closest to the eyes of an octopus.
Human skin is closest to that of a pig."
Explain to me, how this fits in with primates??? With all due respect, i think his aim with "god set it up that way" was meant to be an insult of some kind. He sounds very passionate about this subject and with passion comes biases. While i'm not researched in anyway on this specific argument, generally speaking i'm convinced these people only look at their "evidence" with one prospective; 1st proves evolution or doesn't.. They don't even consider any other possibility of what it could mean..Taken at face value because i don't know anything about the human gnome and could be missing key things due to pure ignorance. Start of video; You had plenty of time to research and form a "theory" on something then proceed to drop this well researched project on someone and expect them to refute you on the drop of dime?? I dont think you need a PHD to say; you should allow someone to try refute your findings within a respectable time frame. That seems like the most objective thing to do. Although i think this would show insecurity on "Ken's" part. (To have holes punched in something your just presenting would be kind embarrassing. or was it arrogance?) Rest of video: Sounds like its not an exact match, "within 15 bases", and something about Telomeres not belonging? The choice of "correspond with" instead of something like is "exactly like", implicates some differences as well?.. But i could be completely wrong.. "no reason, no rhyme" sounds like he is insulting the bible as well. Would be very interested in hearing a completely objective view on these findings..