75 comments posted · 7 followers · following 7

9 years ago @ Equestria Daily - Nightly Discussion #86 · 0 replies · +1 points

Wait... don't horses (thus Ponies by extension) sleep standing up?

Edit: never mind. They do, but not exclusively so. Disregard my partial derp.

9 years ago @ Equestria Daily - Ponies: The Anthology ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Alright Ivo... :P

9 years ago @ Equestria Daily - Super Secret Hidden Me... · 0 replies · +3 points

That assumes there isn't some spell Twi learned to make it vanish...

9 years ago @ Equestria Daily - My Little Pony Faceboo... · 1 reply · +2 points

9 years ago @ Equestria Daily - Music of the Day #334 · 1 reply · +4 points

I don't know about here, but in Equestria I hear 'Lunatella' is the go-to sandwich spread :P

9 years ago @ Equestria Daily - Drawfriend Stuff #1206 · 0 replies · +1 points

#1 indeed it is. Quote from the DA page: "featuring Peter 'Pony' Parker, Twilight Sparkle, and the supporting cast for Spiders and Magic: Rise of Spider-Mane"

9 years ago @ Equestria Daily - Legends of Equestria A... · 0 replies · +3 points

what did I just read... WHY did I just read it... I don't even...

9 years ago @ Equestria Daily - Game/Pixel Art : Eques... · 1 reply · +2 points

Thank you for sharing your views, but I'd also thank you to not weighting your rhetorical questions so as to rile up those who see differently. I was not trying to attack the views you hold and I'm sorry if I came across that way.

Your closing comments also seem unfair, since it can just as easily be said that the Theory of Evolution is unstable (constantly undergoing revisions, some of which are based on hoaxes which never get amended after the hoax is revealed as such) while Creationism has remained steadfast in it's overarching views throughout it's existence (that is to say the original Hebrew and Greek texts have not changed). Please note that I don't mean this as an attack on your beliefs either, but rather want to show how nigh anyone can mince words to have practically any meaning they want when oversimplifying a point, like your closing statements.

9 years ago @ Equestria Daily - Game/Pixel Art : Eques... · 1 reply · +3 points

You don't understand. the skull found was a geological find, not a biblical story. All I was saying was it also fit the creature referenced in biblical text called the Leviathan. It's bad taste to turn this into a debate about beliefs when it's quite apparent that this won't be changing anyone's mind. I simply stated a few bits of evidence, not to support either view, but rather to let others know at least one reason why C_Bro would even bother making such a statement. I'm not going to debate semantics about the difference between proof and evidence, but you are missing what I really said if you think I was trying to prove anything.

One more thing: I've noticed these type arguments invariably devolve into baseless accusations of how "weak minded" or "unintelligent" one or both parties may or may not be. I see this as no different than the arguments over whether watching MLP makes Bronies "gay" or not and usually resolves just as much in the end. I did not intend to start a pointless debate like the one you're baiting, and you obviously don't want to hear the "BS" of "gullible idiots" so let's agree to end the useless bickering right here and now.

9 years ago @ Equestria Daily - Game/Pixel Art : Eques... · 6 replies · +2 points

Indeed. There was even a skull found that fits the description of the Leviathan in the book of Job (not to mention a generic definition of dragon). It had two pockets (one in each side of its skull, just behind where its equivalent of cheeks would be) that contained traces of chemicals. These chemicals, when spit out and combined, would ignite (IE: fire-breathing lizard, aka: the biblical Leviathan, aka: generic 'mythical' dragon) in a reaction remotely similar to the bombardier beetle's explosive bursts (but, of course, complete with flames and incendiary effects).

Also, before the inevitable "dinos died out millions of years ago and couldn't have been seen by humans" comments appear, I just want to point out that, while the Thoery of Evolution is taught as fact in many schools, neither it not the Creationist theory can ever be truly proved as fact. This is due to the impossibility of going back in time to witness what really happened, much less duplicate the exact conditions (whether billions of years or miraculous creation) in a observable setting. Keep in mind, I'm not saying there is zero possibility of either being true. I'm just saying neither can be truly proved true. Evidence such as fossils really only say "this thing was alive and now it's dead". Most other derivations are based on worldview and are subject to speculation, correct or not.

You're welcome to disagree with anything I've said, just please don't be a jerk about it. I'm not telling you what to believe here.