Topic awaiting preservation: Hey, the "Hobbits" arent actually hobbits (Page 3 of 4)

asptamer, I have a question for you.

If you don't understand the really "deep stuff" as you put it, i.e. the science that goes into puting a date on something, geological ages, etc, etc, etc - just who are you going to believe? One man (who is very religious and trying to "prove" the Bible), or a collection of men and women that have devoted their lives in the advancement of knowledge based on a logical, reliable, provable method (subject to peer review)?

Do you think that all those scientists have lied? Do you think that all that they have discovered, is based on fallicies?

Let's take the example of Albert Einstein (you do know about him right? Theory of Relativity?). He believed in God. However, you will not find mentioned anywhere in his Theory of Relativity that the light was "created" suddenly 6000 years ago (and everything else). Do you then think that Dr. Hovind is smarter than Albert Einstein?

Because all this is what you are arguing, what you are suggesting. You may not realize this, but basically it is a true statement. To accept Dr. Hovind's theories, one has to throw all of Science out the window. All the generations, lives, and knowledge built up over hundreds of years. would be null and void in one instance.

You are suggesting, that the same process that allowed the properties of thermal dynamics to be defined, gravity to be measured, and gave us electricity and nuclear energy are flawed, and not accurate tools to use. Because this same process has been used to develop methods of measuring the Date (age) of something.

That doesn't mean that such tools cannot be refined, or sometimes corrigated as we add more to our knowledge base. But the basic process, that which is the Scientific method, with peer review, has proved itself time and again as reliable.

Measured against Religion and belief as such a process, the scientific process wins hands down.

So when you say this

quote:

---

but what he does prove is that many notions of modern science DO NOT HAVE TO BE TRUE. Many of you fail to see that distinction.

---

, you are highly inaccurate.

If you wish to go into the realms of philosophy, now that is something different. We could spend lifetimes debating and discussing the various philosophical models, if you wish. Is reality really real? Are we but dreaming it's existance? Is there a dog?

Religious theories and stories, etc., are science also. When man (humankind) first arose in the depths of pre-hostory, they saw the stars, moon and sun in the sky; they saw fossils of sea creatures where they shouldn't be; they saw all of nature, in its calm and its fury, all around them; they saw fire occasionally. And they came up with theories about why these things were there and how they came to be. Naturally enough, not having the knowledge and tools that we have today, many of these theories depended on gods as the driving force behind everything. As it is today, back then there were some people who were more clever and/or smarter than the others around them. These people were the ones who came up with these ideas. Also back then, there were people who were more devious and power hungry than those around them. These people became the priests and bent these theories to their own purposes to allow them to control others. (As it is today, not all of these priests were "bad" people. Many of them wanted to help others.)

The many-god theories evolved into the one God theory which is still the prevalent "scientific" theory among many people today. The Bible, which represents one version of this theory, was written over many years, with stories that can give us guidance and support. But is was not written as "proof" that the theories are true, but rather as a culminiation of what was known at the time the stories were written.

However, the scientific method became more and more refined. The clever/smart people continued learning about the world around them, and some of the theories were refined as more facts were discovered. These people have developed science into the form that we know it today, with many theories that go against the stories in the Bible. Many of these people still believe in God, and still believe that He/She/It created all of this. BUT, not in seven days 6,000 years ago. Some may believe that, instead, God may have started the seed that allowed the world to develop into the world we know, and allowed us to grow into the people we have become, and this "experiment" by God is continuing. There are probably other ways that some of these people believe in God, I can only imagine.

The bottom line is that we should not let the development of science be stuck in theories that were in place 6,000 years ago. We need to grow and continue to learn about how and why things work and why they are the way they are.

For one example, instead of believing that a god or gods caused a flood that covered the entire earth all at one time and put clams on mountains for them to become fossilized, we should allow the thought of other ways that this could have happened.The plate tectonic theory is pretty well proven and measurable, and is nearly irrefutable. So what if that disagrees with a story in the Bible? This is the continuation of the search for knowledge that began when mankind first began to be able to think to the level of being able to wonder why, and try to come up with answers to these wonderings.

(Edited by briggl on 11-13-2004 15:42)

Thank you for that, briggl. Nice post.

Precisely. I have brought up that point myself in many of these discussions - what is looked at as religion today was the beginning of man's scientific ponderings. It never stopped evolving, but large groups of people dug their heels in and refused to accept that our understanding could move forward.

This is still a problem in the scientific community as well. There are inevitably people who want their current understanding to be "it", and do not want to retain flexibility - do not want to continue learning.

Back to Asptamer -

Suggesting that what we currently undestand as scientific truth (and yes, even though these things are often still called 'theories', they are based on established fact and measured observation, and corroborated by many people of many different religious/ethnic/other persuasions) might not necessarily be true is one thing - and is, in fact, a good thing. Science *must* continue to grow. That's what science is, that's what science does.

However, making this suggestion, and then offering nothing solid or real or verifiable as evidence in support of a biblical story is completely meaningless.

Nobody here is failing to make your distinction.

You are failing to make a viable argument for what you are trying to say.



(Edited by DL-44 on 11-13-2004 17:34)

^ And that is the poop.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

asptamer, I have a question for you.

If you don't understand the really "deep stuff" as you put it, i.e. the science that goes into puting a date on something, geological ages, etc, etc, etc - just who are you going to believe?

---

uhhh, I believe it was Kevin G who sais he doesnt understand the deep stuff... or I dont know where youre coming from. Much of what you said has nothing to do with what I posted or believe in (except the sicentist lie part, but that is not entirely true. I didnt suggest they lied, I asked why do we think they're right? they showed no proof. the proof they used does not really prove what they say...), maybe you should re-read the thread, or watch the videos yourself...

I never said I think the world was created 6000 years ago and god put man on earth... no... I might have said that due to lack of facts it could be possible (even though that might not be my own belief); but most of what I wrote dealt with the flood, not creation of the world. I spiced it up with some miracles that Hovind used (changing physical laws) just to show u that you cannot disapprove it. And if it is making less sense than 500 million year evolution, thats just because you heard it since you were little.

DL spoke of something solid or real or verifiable, and said that I dont give any of that. Well, neither does science... Or maybe I've been asleep in my biology/geology classes... if so, please, show me the light, what is the solid and real and verifiable proof of the following theories:

1)All life evolved from a chemical soup millions of years ago when the conditions were suitable for such change (this is free-swimming chemicals --->> living things).
2)Although we get huge errors while radio-dating things, we believe that things are 100s of millions years old, yet there is proof that most of those things could very well be younger than most people on earth.
(though I dont say they are indeed... just could be, but if they could be so young, their age can be anything. even 4000 years)

and please, dont start talking how there is no such theory because my wording is a little bit off... If its off - its accidental.
and before you give me solid and verifiable info to support the above beliefs (which is what I believe modern science stands for), heres what hovind thinks: 1) has no proof whatsoever - its religion. 2) fossils are known to form in 30-40 years.

I know WebShaman will try to say something like "how can you belive otherwise?!" Thats not what I said, I asked WHY does everyone else believe it. My trust in scientific stories (about the past) is heavily undermined. I wanna see where they're coming from, with all these ideas.

anyone read Velikovski?

oh, uh, about light

in bible it says god created light on day 1
then, unless it's referring to a different light,
he didn't create the sources of light until day 4

hint: which came first, the chicken or the egg?

theory: most evolutionists and creationists are

Well, technically this also works with Big Bang theory. The big bang itself is a big-ass explosion. If you could see it happen, you would probably be blinded by the amount of energy (light) that was released. Only after some time (billions of years, according to some theorists,) were there stars forming.

Here's something I thought of a long time ago:
If you were to create life, a bunch of living organisms - would you make a completely new design for every single specie? or would you first design the part (of DNA) which all organisms have in common - the essense of what it means to be alive; and then make modifications so that there is a lot of variation. Of course, as an intelligent programmer - you would allow your creation to modify itself, to change if the conditions become different.
What scientists did is they discovered that all living things, from bacteria to human, have similarities in their DNA sequence; so they assumed that former evolved into latter... There is no ground for such an assumption. If you think about it, it is almost equivalent to saying "since I see that the earth is flat, then the whole of it must be flat..."

When we find fossils - we dont see the smooth transitions. All we see is a bunch of different-looking petrified [once] living things. Is it really fair to assume that all of them evolved from some carbon and oxygen and nitrogen and hydrogen combining under some special condtions? We cannot exclude it as a possibilty (even though we dont see a record of that. Of course, we cant be sure that life did not evolve elsewhere in the universe, and was then brought here by some meteorite... and that God who warned Noah was not a representative of some alien specie who saw the comet approach the earth and wanted to help us survive it), but isnt it too much to call it a scientific truth and leave no room for discussion? Sounds like religion. And all of you are calling Hovind (and me because I defend some of his views) a heretic. If this were middle ages, Im sure WebShaman would burn me at a stake.

and Im still waiting for someone to answer the questions in previous post...

Asptamer - I must reiterate: scientific 'theory', on the level of what we are discussing here, is not jsut some guy sitting in a room pondering how things might have happened.

This, however, is what you are trying to do.

There is so much random rambling in your posts that ignores established facts that to address it all would be a mind-numbing enterprise.

No, we cannot continue to answer every question you might ahve about these things - go read a few books.

Apparently, as you suggested, yuo've slept through your science classes. It serves no purpose to continue responding to your random ponderings - get some foundation first, then we can discuss the details...

asptamer wrote:

quote:

---

DL spoke of something solid or real or verifiable, and said that I dont give any of that. Well, neither does science..

---

Um, yes, science does give something solid, real and verifiable, so you must have been sleeping through your science classes. There are plenty of solid, real, verifiable facts to back up most scientific theories. If you can't see and agree with that statement, then you are very dilusional and no further discussion with you is worthwhile undertaking.

uhhh like what??

u wont tell cuz I dont deserve the energy spent on typing it up? or cuz u cant answer those?
I've read/heard a lot about the subject, but now that I think about it - I dont really recall anything SOLID and indisputable.

quote:

---

I dont really recall anything SOLID and indisputable.

---

Just because you do not recall the facts does not mean that they do not exist. If you spent as much time reading a good science text as you do watching those videos, you might actually learn something.

No, I take that back, you probably wouldn't.

So...are you saying you would like us to divulge the entire contents of our current scientific understanding to you?

I mean.....what you are asking - considering the extent of discussion already undertaken here - is for the things you are already saying you don't buy to be re-explained to you, with all the detail and background available....we're talking a discussion of several years length.

So no, I don't feel any desire to pull out more facts for you to dismiss without understanding - sorry.

read up. see what it's all about...and why we 'believe' what we do...

Again - we're talking about centuries of study, observation, experimentation, and corroboration by people with a wide variety of religious/educational backgrounds.

It's not something "beleived" because it's in some grade-school text books...

ok. thanks for your time, profs. Briggl and DL

First of all, my apologies asptamer. I did indeed get you mixed up with Kevin G. My mistake, and my apology.

Second, didn't you have at least 12 years of schooling? During those years, didn't you receive the foundation of scientific knowledge? Physics, Chemistry, Geography, and Biology?

Why should we repeat that here? You have already had the basics!

and with this attitude, no wonder you haven't learned much.....

This "evolution is just a theory" argument is another that AnsweringGenesis.org says should not be used.
Again, I say, do the tiniest bit of research to get your story straight. This isn't the little leagues. The people here are intelligent people who take their passions (for web development, science, math, creationism, and others) very seriously.

Asptamer - You said "I dont really recall anything SOLID and indisputable" - What are you referring to with this? Is it evolution? Physics? Chemistry? Fossils? Radiometric dating? I may have missed what you were referring to, and if so, I apologize. Hovind has obviously raised some questions for you. Now, I don't know what your background in the sciences have been, and I will make no assumptions based on the questions you have raised. I have a pretty strong background in earth sciences - and from what I have seen of Hovind's work is he takes the basic idea of a scientific principle without really acknowledging the entire process to make his theory or ideas sound plausible. He asks, "Why does science claim the earth is so old?" I have to ask, "Why is he so bent on it not being that old?"

Someone mentioned in another thread about this month's National Geographic. The main article is "Was Darwin Wrong?" The article goes on to explain that a) he wasn't, b) the number of Americans not believing in evolution has not changed in the last 20 years, c) gives excellent examples of how evolution works both in modern day and through the ages - explaining how some of those "gaps" came to be. If you get the opportunity, I highly recommend this article to anyone - I think it is one of the best and most comprehensive articles on evolution I have ever read.

^ Absolutely. If you have questions about evolution, this artilce is a great place to jump in.

As for Hovind asking why science claims the earth is so old - great. Ask! Investigate. Take the evidence you find and proffer your own theory, if a sound scientific method takes you that far.

As I said earlier, that's the way science works. That's why science exists.

But man....these theories that he brings forward, and his "evidence" for them is just plain frightening in most cases.

So, here is one for Kevin G., Asptamer, and Gideon :

If the world is really just 6000 years old, and Noah took in all the animals in pairs on the Ark...it has been discussed, that all animals at that time were herbivores.

However, one teeny-tiny problem still remains, maybe one of you could explain it for me?

What about the snake? We know that the snake existed before the flood (since the garden of eden, to be precise - just using a reference from the bible, thank you). And a snake is definitely a predator. There are NO vegetarian snakes.

Please explain this to me.

Oh that ones easy!

A) Snales swim! Didnt you see ANACONDA the movie

B) Snakes also live in holes - Air Pockets! - And it was spring so they just ate their offspring to survive the 40 days and nights.

C) The Devil protected the really evil creatures!

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

Now I see why you have remained "unknown"...hehe.



For those looking to maybe understand Evolution - Biology and Evolutionary Theory is a good start.

Let us have some more fun! - check out The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution. A fascinating look at evolution from the Islamic viewpoint.

I wonder what Hindus and Taoists think of Evolution?

A Hindu perspective - Dharma vs. Darwin?

Fresh light on cellular theory - http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/seta/2002/08/15/stories/2002081500030200.htm

(Edited by WebShaman on 11-16-2004 12:07)

What's a snale?

Perhaps a snake that lives in a shell at the bottom of ponds?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

I thought it was a fast mutation of a snake and a snail? Who knows what strange things happened in those dark corners of the Ark?

And yet all of us do; one way or another we adhere to ancient perceptions in this modern world!

Could you perhaps explain what that has to do with "hobbits"?

Snakes are known to eat eggs. Perhaps at the time of eden it swallowed whole fruit.
You never know. Or perhaps it ate insects which are not like animal life. But, is that
really important to understanding Hobbits.

hehehe!

I thought I was alone at this site.

DL-44nsaid somthing awhile back that caught my attention, so I thought i would interject....

I'm new to this site . I made a couple of comments on ANTICHRIST & evolution vs, creation that I thought might keep it a little more bible-based versus off the cuff.

quote:

---

Perhaps at the time of eden it swallowed whole fruit.
You never know. Or perhaps it ate insects which are not like animal life.

---

Perhaps?? You are basing something on a perhaps?! Prove it. Show me the evidence.

All evidence points to the contrary.

As for the comments made by DL, you really should have listened first, instead of firing off your mouth. Now it is too late.

valpal1: You should definitely learn to click on the button to edit your posts instad of posting an army of messages.

quote:

---

DL-44nsaid somthing awhile back that caught my attention, so I thought i would interject....

---

In addition to the edit button, the [ quote ] functionality is quite helpful.

If you are going to address something someone said in an earlier post, it is much easier to make your point if you quote the text you are referring to.

As to whether we all do, in fact, rely on ancient perceptions...it could be said to some degree. Our minds are not really different than they were then. We better understand the world around us, but only because of the accumulated knowledge that we can preserve and pass on. Standing on the shoulders of giants...so to speak.

Take that away, and we go right back to our limited and fearful understanding of the world.

But we *do* have such knowledge, and are obligated to make use of it, IMO.

We have the ability to outgrow our ancient minds...

{{edit - for those of you still unclear -

quote:

---

Bugimus - as far as it being how the ancient cultures saw the world....they saw a *whole* lot of things in the world that were very definately misperceptions.

it is fascinating to read the ancient perceptions in the context of them being ancient perceptions.

To read about them as "modern science" is truly frightening.

---

(Edited by DL-44 on 11-27-2004 05:14)

nice quote from Bugs there

'Bugimus - as far as it being how the ancient cultures saw the world....they saw a *whole* lot of things in the world that were very definately misperceptions.'

was it really their misperceptions, or could it possibly be ours?

and is it frightening, or amazingly interesting?

quote:

---

We have the ability to outgrow our ancient minds...

---

To clarify - that's a quote from me, responding to bugs

And to further clarify - many of these things were very definately their misperceptions, and it is most deefinately frightening when people turn to such things and call it modern science.

(Edited by DL-44 on 11-27-2004 06:44)

As good a job as people are doing as this thrad veers wildly of course I don't think anyone answered asptamers questions but first a quick stop via these statements:

quote:

---

asptamer said:

DL spoke of something solid or real or verifiable, and said that I dont
give any of that. Well, neither does science... Or maybe I've been
asleep in my biology/geology classes... if so, please, show me the
light, what is the solid and real and verifiable proof of the following
theories:

---

The problem with a lot of educaiton is that usually (esp. in the hard sciences) try and fill you full of facts to help you pass exams. What you tend not to be taught is critical thinking - although good teachers will bring it in as a vital part of your education. You not only need to examine what is being said but why people are saying it and you need to go out and dig out more evidence than you are just given and examine both arguements with your own biases left at the front door.

Asking for "solid and real and verifiable proof" appears to demonstrate a flawed understanding of what science is and does - it creates theories and hypotheses and tests them with evidence. No theory can ever be proved definitively although enough evidence can be brought together to show that some theories (plate tectonics for example) are as close to a good representation of what is actually happening as to be treated as a Fact. Science's apparent inability to give "definitive Truth" is often seen as a flaw (whereas it is its greatest strength) and is one of the reasons that religon and Creationism seem attractive as they do claim to offer Truth.

Clearly if you aren't paying attention either it makes things trickier

But on to the questions:

quote:

---

asptamer said:
1)All life evolved from a chemical soup millions of years ago when the
conditions were suitable for such change (this is free-swimming
chemicals --->> living things).

---

The key stepping stone appears to be tholins - it works in the lab and is one of the things that our trip to Titan will possibly help us finally verfiy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/saturn_prog_summary.shtml

quote:

---

asptamer said:
2)Although we get huge errors while radio-dating things, we believe
that things are 100s of millions years old, yet there is proof that
most of those things could very well be younger than most people on
earth.
(though I dont say they are indeed... just could be, but if they could be so young, their age can be anything. even 4000 years)

---

There does seem to be confusion over the word "errors" - it is a statistical term (error margins) but if it helps you can think of them more as standard deviations (they provide a percentage certainty that the actual date falls into that specific range). If such uncertainty is uncomfortable or people then I'd refer them to my earlier answers.

I'd be interested in the "proof" that things that are dated to millions of years old are much more recent. Sometimes this is based in solid science but when I have heard it from creationists it is almost always are due to a poor grasp of the actual science or a wilful misreading of it.

It all comes back to critical thinking in the end - I'm not going to tell you what to think (you need to find that out for yourself). Just be wary of anyone who thinks they can and offers you Truth.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

To Emperor,

I enjoyed your comments to Asptamer.

quote--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It all comes back to critical thinking in the end - I'm not going to tell you what to think (you need to find that out for yourself). Just be wary of anyone who thinks they can and offers you Truth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth vs. Fact appears similar to an oxymoron, as one could say. I really think that the Bible's truth is in harmony to any Fact that is presented in today's world society.

What I mean is that the Bible is not a text book on sciences, religions, medicines, governments, mathmatics, history or the like. It is a Book about the Unique God of the known universe and his actions in regards to creation; and, more specifically, his dealings with mankind. Even to be more speciific, those that worship him.

However, when His Word touches on the aforementioned subjects it is fully reliable.

I have looked at what others have said is "proof" and have found it misguided and wanting. The Bible IS NOT "just another mythical book". The accuracy of the information in Genesis chs. 1&2 is indisputable incomparison to all other such ancient accounts about creation. There was a Beginning, Heavens First, next our Sun, moon and earth are mentioned. Then, God forms land apart from the waters that covered the primordial earth. After that, God forms multiple divisions between waters on Earth, above it such as clouds, and lastly, a water canopy above the clouds that was destroyed during the Flood. Sequentially, and most logically, he imprints the life principle on inanimate matter by forming vegetation of everykind. After this sea and air life appear and, lastly, all sorts of land animals and humans.

This is a Fact of the order of living things. Where do the dinosaurs fit in, you might challenge? I say what the bible says; that all animal life existed before mankind was brought into existence. That is the Truth.
Did humans see Jurassicical dinosaurs ? THE BIBLE IS SILENT ON THE ISSUE. That is a FACT.

In my opinion, God ended their lives before man came into existence. And, It would seem that cave paintings would have been found showing these great beasts alive if they were here when mankind was.

What interests me most about the Genesis account is its order and logicalness where no other creation account can. All others tell of killing and blood or wagon-before-the horse chronology that would make any serious student of knowledge disregard it immediadely.

As far as how old the earth is, say billions. The bible says the earth was here before God started causing it to be a habitable world. The earth was being formed with the rest of the heavens,i.e. solar system and if lunar theorists are correct things on earth stayed hot for a long time on earth and was very nubulous here when the moon as a rogue satelite crashed into earth and eventually became its "anchor for life".

I say anchor for life because these theorists say the earth would totter so much that life on earth would be impossibe.

If evolutionists are correct we are the luckiest planet in the universe. If they are wrong they will be the sorriest group in the universe.

Quick thought, Ch.1 says 6 days then God rested. Ch.2 says God Created Heavens and Earth in a Day. I believe the word "day" here and in other places of the bible are symbolic of a undetermined amount of time.
A example of this is when Peter says With God a thousand years are as a "DAY" to Him. In Fact, 1 day mentioned in the Bible is 7,000 years long.

So, maybe people should give the TRUTH A CHANCE IN THEIR LIFE. LIKEWISE NOT FORSAKING FACTS.

From the Gallery: Hoo hoo ... please, guys, give me just a few moments to grab some Peanut M&Ms and a beer before you respond to this one ...

Edit: OK, sorry, can't wait. I hate to butt in and offer so little, but a couple of things just stuck with me ...

quote:

---

Did humans see Jurassicical dinosaurs ? THE BIBLE IS SILENT ON THE ISSUE. That is a FACT.

---

Yes, it is a "FACT" that the Bible is silent on the issue of dinosaurs. What in the name of sweet Moses does that prove? You said absolutely nothing with this statement. It makes me wonder what your "logicalness" was behind it.

And though I am not arguing for the concurrent existence of man and dino, there is no "logicalness" in stating that the absence of known dinosaur cave paintings proves they did not live together. You seem to have a thing for arguing points based on a lack of evidence.

Also, it might benefit you to know that dinosaurs did not exist solely in the Jurassic period. It might also benefit you to know that it was the Jurassic period.

OK, back to my M's and beer. Carry on.



(Edited by Wes on 11-28-2004 06:16)

i'm just confused now.

the problem with this subject in general is that we have (in most places) folks with lots of bible knowledge and little knowledge of science arguing why science is wrong with people with lots of scientific knowledge and little to no understanding of the bible. gee, i can't imagine why no one can communicate

as i've mentioned a few times before, an interested read on this is a book called the science of god. its written by a guy named gerald schroeder, a theologian with a phd in physics from MIT. gives an interesting balance to the usual two extremes...

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

valpal1 said:

If evolutionists are correct we are the luckiest planet in the
universe. If they are wrong they will be the sorriest group in the
universe.

---

You haven't really addressed any of my points (which is your call) but I thought I should refer you to the Anthropic Principle on this last one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Basically if conditions weren't perfect for life then we wouldn't exist and be able to ask how come conditions are so perfect for life.

I'm unsure why they'd be the sorriest group in the Universe? Because God will send them to Hell and have their most private parts tormented for all eternity by blowtorch-wielding demons?

We are all trying to make sense of the Universe - science is trying a different approach to one that is based on diffrent people's interpretations of different holy books/creation myhts.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

quote:

---

Emperor said:

God will send them to Hell and have their most private parts tormented for all
eternity by blowtorch-wielding demons?

---

Do they have to pay for that?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.