Yes Ryan S, but the efficacy of SSRIs etc has the support of evidence based medicine. Many of the scientific method practices commonly used today to establish efficacy were around at the time Freeman was doing his work, yet he irresponsibly inflicted lobotomies on hundreds of people in the complete absence of evidence supporting the efficacy of the procedure.

Scientologists would have you believe that psychiatrists still regularly perform lobotomies today.

That depends on your definition of god. Personally I think a god as as abstract as god = nature/the universe (as often referred to by the deist Einstein) is a redundant god.

The possibility that any one of these cases may actually be perpetrated by more that 1 creature should be considered. A single tiger branded the Champawat tiger was blamed for over 400 deaths and missing persons across India and Nepal in the late 19th century. I think it catches the public's imagination more to believe in a single rogue killer rather than a series of unrelated attacks.

They forgot about prostitutes.

I would consider myself to be an active truth seeker but if anything that has only lead me away from god. At least the Rat says "IF Christ is the logos...", leaving some room for error.

And don't go whipping out any Francis Bacon quotes on me. Science only leads a person to god if they believe in the god of the gaps.

@Ryan S, :) Funny how Ratzinger mentions reason and then proceeds to violate logical reasoning by begging the question in that first sentence.

@Ryan S, I hear that's what they say in Vatican City on Christmas day when they wait for Ratzinger to make his appearance.

Keep in mind that even experts are unable to make predictions with any level of accuracy just 5 years into the future in their fields of expertise (e.g. asking a medical researcher to predict future medical discoveries etc...), let alone 39 years.

It should be fun to reflect on how wildly inaccurate these "predictions" are in 2050.

In Australia we say "a-tissue a-tissue" instead of "ashes ashes" in Ring Around the Rosie with a sort of emphasis on the "tish" sound (we pronounce some double Ss as "sh"), so it sounds like a sneeze.

I can do a mean gollum but it's exhausting. I can only do about a minute or so of continuous gollum until my larynx gives out.

I assume the 1/1000 figure applies to a randomly selected egg. Seeing as all the eggs come from a single source, they would not be a representative sample of all eggs, so it's a little misleading to multiply the odds by a factor of 29. Perhaps the chicken/s they came from had a condition that predisposed them to producing double yolkers. Or perhaps somebody intentionally selected the very largest eggs for the video (particularly large eggs are often double yolkers).

Still impressive.

This reminds me of Black Books when Manny gets trapped in the store and is forced to eat Bernard's dead bees on the windowsill.

Correct NuckG, I am Australian, and so I use British English spelling :)

I'm glad to see he's starting by ruling out some of the likely explainations, that it was a baboon or gorilla (?)