Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Warp wrote:
"Evolution didn't create the Grand Canyon". I wonder if anyone is even claiming that evolution created any geographical formations whatsoever... :P
evolutionists and scientists claim that evolution created grand canyon. evolution means "change over time". when he says that evolution didn't create grand canyon, he's of course talking about the evolution of the earth, not the evolution of species.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
i don't know much about operating systems... all i know is that vista is crap, windows 7 will be good, mac has no programs, and windows is best because it has most programs and games. i also know that some people use linux, which is an operating system made for programmers or other computer geniuses.
my hotkeys become a little messed up in this version. F1 takes a screenshot (the default should be F12), F2 loads state 1, F3 loads state 2, F4 loads state 3 and so on. it probably has something to do with the new thing you added in the hotkeys called "maximum speed".
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
marzojr wrote:
My point was that a literal interpretation is impossible. If you hand-wave the contradiction in any way (as you do), then you have proved my point -- you are not interpreting it literally.
there's no contradiction there, if you take it literally enough... you see, if you take it literally, god first created angelic androgynous beings. genesis1 says that he created them "male and female" (hermaphrodite). in genesis2, eve (the rib) was separated from this hermaphrodite being. so, eve wasn't created later, she was created at the same time as adam, so genesis 1 and 2 do not contradict each other. it's not contradictory to have two different creation accounts, because god could have created/modified humans several times.
Bag of Magic Beans wrote:
Or you could take the opposite approach, and say that since we already discovered so many things that God didn't have to do, then we may as well think that God did nothing! But why be so binary-absolutist about it?
the world is made of.. binary.. language... male and female, right-wing and left-wing, pAst and futuRe, religion and science, belief and knowledge, yin and yang. religious people want to live in the past. atheists want to go into the future.
Warp wrote:
So what you are basically saying is that "evolution happens but it doesn't happen". Way to go.
no. i'm saying that species change, but they don't change ("evolve") the way that the theory of evolution says they change, ie. a single celled organism doesn't turn into fish eventually.
Wow, that's a new one. "The theory is too good because it explains too well how life evolved. Thus it must be false, because it would leave too little for God to do." This is the first time I hear the argument of the theory of evolution being too good to be true.
lol... but i'm talking about a hypothetical situation here. IF the theory of evolution was true, it would make god kinda useless, which is exactly what it has done (because it has convinced most people that it's true): most people no longer believe that god created species, they believe that god created the first living thing and then let evolution take over. some christians don't even believe that god created the first living things, they just think that he snapped his fingers before the big bang to make all the natural laws. if evolution is true, it makes god superfluous and almost deistic.
There is an old Kabbalistic saying that goes something like this: "The breath becomes a stone; the stone becomes a plant; the plant becomes an animal; the animal becomes a man; the man becomes a spirit; and the spirit becomes a god."
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Gman wrote:
You're extending it based on your own personal feelings. Why wouldn't it make sense for God to create the spark of life, and let evolution take over? What if he thought evolution was a good idea? Just because you say it doesn't make sense doesn't make that true. I say it makes perfect sense.
to say that god created the first lifeforms and then evolution took over reminds me of the "god of the gaps": we don't know how life got started, so we fill that gap with "god did it". i think that if we're going to fill gaps with gods, we should fill all of them and say that god does everything.
as far as i know, there are only two things in the world that can do things: natural laws and consciousness/free-will (some fundamentalist atheists say that free will does not exist because our brain too is run by natural laws). atheists believe that natural laws are the creators of everything, and theists believe that consciousness is the creator of everything. atheists usually fill the gaps of knowledge with natural laws or chance.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
GMan wrote:
You can continue your conversation with Warp, but answer me this: what makes the Bible reliable evidence? You're saying, "the bible says x, so x is true.", but why should you believe the Bible?
ok, i'll answer this too. i believe in many things in the bible because it has turned out to be right about many things, and other holy scriptures agree with it too.
i don't know if you should/could believe in the bible if you haven't found any evidence that it's true. the bible is not so important nowadays anymore. but in the past, it would have been good to believe in it even if you don't understand everything about it, because it's divinely inspired, so it transcends human intelligence. jesus says that "happy is he who believes without seeing". it can sometimes be good to believe even if you have no evidence, because you can't get the evidence without believing.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
LagDotCom wrote:
Not that any discussion with nfq is going to be fruitful.
i disagree. i never discuss things that are not fruitful. i doubt it's even possible to have a discussion without fruits.
Warp wrote:
But there's already a subjective interpretation right there. What is "obvious" to someone might not be so obvious to someone else.
As I said, nobody takes the bible literally. Every single person has an interpretation of it. There's no such a thing as a "biblical literalist". There are only interpretations.
true, but some people take the bible more literally than others. the lamb thing is obviously metaphorical. like you yourself said: every christian knows it's not supposed to be taken literally.
don't take the term "biblical literalist" so literally.
No, it doesn't. Evolution is happening all the time. Every offspring is different from its parents, and different from every other living being. That's evolution happening.
nobody argues that variations happen (because it's a fact). what i meant is of course that 6000 years is not enough time for a single celled organism to change into a human.
Where exactly?
genesis 1:24
Why do I have to believe that? Who is forcing me? Certainly not the theory of evolution.
the theory of evolution forces you to believe that life comes from nonliving material, because how else could life have come into being? it sounds strange to think that god would snap his fingers and create the first living things, and then let evolution take over. evolution makes god superfluous. it explains too much about the origin of species/lifeforms.
Just because you don't accept the proof doesn't mean it isn't there.
there is also proof for many things that religions claim (afterlife, for example). i know you don't accept the proof, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Now you are being hilarious.
if you believe in evolution, it's hilarious to think that there could have been scientists in the past who knew more about the world than modern scientists.
evolution says that we had less knowledge about the world before, but creation says that we were created perfect, so we had better knowledge about the world in the past.
marzojr wrote:
Adam, for example, was created from mud and some hocus pocus.
incorrect. life can only come from life. and the bible says that god is life.
trivia: adam = atom.
Well, already in genesis there are two different, irreconcilable accounts of creation: they differ by chronology, giving different temporal orders for the creation of man and animals. They cannot both be true: man cannot have been created before and after animals were created.
it might seem contradictory, but it's not. in the beginning the bible also says that men and women were created at the same time, but later it says that eve was created later (from the rib). that's not a contradiction either, if you understand it.
an important thing to understand about creation is that things don't just pop into existence. "creation" (or evolution) is a slow process. it takes millions of years.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Warp wrote:
Or are you going to claim that some Christians believe that the Heaven will be full of sheep? There are certain instances in the bible
where the word "lamb" is used metaphorically, not literally, and every single Christian in existence understands and accepts that.
when i talk about biblical literalists i mean people who take the bible literally, except when it's obvious that it's metaphorical, as in the case of lambs.
And even if we assumed for a moment that the universe was really just 6000 years old, how does that prove that evolution doesn't happen?
because evolution needs more time than 6000 years.
Evolution is only about how species change over time. Is there anything in the bible that contradicts this notion?
the bible says that animals bring forth after their kind, but evolution claims that animals can turn into different kinds of animals over millions of years.
If we assume for a moment that the story of creation in the bible is a parable and that the universe really is billions of years old, is there anything else in the bible that would contradict evolution?
i'm sure there is, but i can't come up with anything right now, and i don't have so much knowledge about this. you should ask a young earth creationist.
There you go with the misconception that evolution is about how life came to be.
if you believe in evolution, then you also have to believe that life started from non-living matter.
Science requires proof. It's that simple.
science doesn't always require proof. look at the theory of big bang and evolution for example.
That's the difference between you and science: Science doesn't "believe" in things. Science observes, measures and presents hypotheses and theories to explain those observations. Science requires actual tangible evidence, not just folktales.
the things that religions and folktales talk about were discovered by ancient scientists.
A metaphor is not "false". A metaphor is a metaphor. It's the message it's trying to convey that is true or false.
the creation story in the bible is metaphorical. most things in the bible are metaphorical. i have to say that i actually agree with you about most things, i just defend the creationists because otherwise we would have nothing to discuss.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
GMan wrote:
I find it incredible people would rather believe a small handful of non-scientific religious philosophers over scientists who's thinking skills are higher than many people here.
i used to think it was incredible too, but that was when i still believed in darwin's theory of evolution. if his theory is true, then people had less knowledge about the world before (and they were dumber), but if it is not true, then some people in the past could have been more intelligent and knowledgeable than all the scientists today. and science might not be the only way to gain knowledge. you might be able to get information from highly evolved spiritual beings (angels and aliens). some people can for example speak a language which they have never learned/heard before. it's called xenoglossy.
the pharaoh's in egypt were called gods. maybe they were called gods because they were so much more evolved than the rest of humans, that they seemed like gods to us. and they could do miracles with their technology, like regenerating limbs.
Warp wrote:
I don't really understand why most creationists (and some other people) oppose the idea evolution. What is so scary about it, that it must be so strongly opposed?
if evolution is true, then the bible can't be taken literally. for example, the earth can't be 6000 years old. and if the bible can't be taken literally, then how can we follow the bible/word of god? how can we follow something that we can't even understand? who decides which interpretation is correct?
the reason people oppose the idea of evolution is because the theory of evolution opposes most religious scriptures. almost all religions say that we were created by gods and we were taught by beings who came down to earth.
another reason to oppose evolution is that it's anti-intuitive. the world is too complex and big that it could have "created itself" by an ungodly unintelligent natural process. there isn't much evidence for the theory of evolution, so it's more like a belief than a theory. if you don't believe there is anything spiritual, then evolution might sound like the only plausible explanation. most people today are materialists. they believe that "matter" is the only thing that exists. they don't believe that there is a "spiritual" universe.
furthermore, some christians don't like the idea that we evolved from slimy amoebas, and they don't want to believe that jesus was an ape. personally, i believe in the hindu and nazi mythology/theory which says that apes were created because some humans in atlantis turned into apes because they sinned. in that sense, i do believe in a common ancestor, but humans were the common ancestor of all creatures (and gods were the ancestors of humans).
Is there something in that idea which is so abhorrent and heretic that it must be denied fiercely at all costs and against all evidence? Why? What exactly is so scary about it?
evolution is heresy. if evolution is true, then many things in the bible must be false. can there even be a global flood if evolution is true? if evolution is true, why did jesus die on the cross? the bible says that god will restore the earth the way it used to be. what will he restore it to? more death and more suffering? because that's what evolution says happened... animals died and suffered for millions of years. the bible says that when we were first created, we lived forever... there was no death.
watch debates like this to gain better understanding of fundamentalist creationists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuHuG517lI&feature=related
Creationists accept that species change over time due to, for example, natural adaptation or selective breeding. However, they maintain that these changes will never go so far as to make two isolated populations of the same species so different that they cannot interbreed anylonger, in which case they have become, by definition, two different species. That would mean that there's some kind of phenomenon or force stopping such changes from happening. That there's some law of nature, or something, which will always keep populations of the same species interbreedable regardless of how much they change due to natural adaptation. Exactly what is this force? Why should such a force even exist?
i doubt many creationists oppose species evolving into different species, because hasn't that (speciation) already been proven/observed? rather, most creationist oppose the idea that creatures can turn into different "kinds" of animals. a chihuahua and a great dane might not be able to interbreed, but they are still the same kind of animal: dog.
dog proves god. we have artificially tried to create different dogs for centuries, but still, we only have dogs. there is no evidence that species could through natural selection and mutations change so much that they would create all the different animals that we see in the world.
While opposers might not state it directly, they are basically saying that all the hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world are in a huge conspiracy to lie to the world and to deny the truth (ie. that there really is no evidence nor transitional species).
according to people like kent hovind, who take the bible very literally, the reason they are lying is because they want to follow their sin more than the bible, so they want to imagine that they are just animals (apes) who were created by a natural process without any intervention by god, and that they don't have to be judged for the things they have done.
It's a physical impossibility to pass a lie to science and make all scientists either believe in it or agree to spread the lie further.
i doubt it would be an impossibility. scientists are not infallible. they are just humans.
Many creationists equate evolution with the origin of life, and some even go so far as to bunch it with the origin of the entire universe.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
DarkKobold wrote:
These are observable evolutions in our lifetime.
moar like microevolutions...
i used to believe in evolution once too. it's because we were indoctrinated into believing that in school because it was taught as if it was a fact, so now most people still believe it's a fact, even though it's not.
i do believe in evolution, but my evolution theory is different from darwin's... i believe we will evolve into angels... but just like darwin's theory, it takes millions of years to happen, so you can't disprove it.
Granted, I know I can't change your mind. To you the Bible is an infallible source of information.
lol, no, you have misunderstood me. i don't even believe in god. i'm an atheist. the bible has a lot of things i don't agree with, but it also has a lot of good and funny things, like the global flood which i believe in.
Exodus 21:7-11 wrote:
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.
the devil wrote this part of the bible to test the faith of the believers. or maybe things were different back then. it's a really old book, so we shouldn't take everything it says so literally.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
thanks for all the suggestions so far, it's very helpful :)
mz wrote:
If you liked Parasite Eve 2, you're probably going to love Dino Crisis 2.
i'll give it a try some day. parasite eve 2 is pretty good, but it has several problems that gets you killed, like bad controls, camera angles and switching targets can be a pain too sometimes. plus, it also talks a lot about evolution, which is really scary... just kidding
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
GMan wrote:
Except the evidence is readily available for anyone else to confirm.
well, there is evidence for intelligent design too. just search on youtube or google if you don't believe me.
Just try, oh I don't know, searching?
there are similarities between humans and apes, and speciation occurs, but it's not evidence that a single celled organism can turn into a human over billions of years.
I guess I could throw in an example: We cannot drink salt water, yet most of Earths water is salt water. There is no evidence to believe it was ever otherwise.
according to the biblical flood Theory, there was no salt water in the beginning, because otherwise some salt water animals wouldn't have survived the flood.
On a side note, I thought this was interesting: "> The cause of human unhappiness is not the world around them" Do floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes ring a bell?
if you could change the world so that there are no floods, hurricanes and earthquakes, would you do it? would that kind of world work?
Warp wrote:
Opposition to the evolution theory is a dogma, and dogmas cannot be refuted.
try to refute this video i made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xEkJpvjP1c&feature=channel_page
the theory of evolution is dogma. if the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, then intelligent design and creationism also qualify as scientific theories.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Warp wrote:
I think it's sad that you don't realize that anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all. At most it can be incentive for further study, but in no way a proof of anything.
um... where did i say that anecdotal evidence is evidence? read what i wrote more carefully. i didn't say anything about evidence in the entire post. i don't even know if astral projection is real because i haven't had one yet. it's just something i believe in.
edit: not to say there isn't evidence for it. there is. but i usually don't care so much about evidence, because evidence doesn't usually prove anything. for example, people say there is evidence for the theory of evolution, but what does it prove? nothing. because they don't actually have evidence, they just say they have, so it's anecdotal evidence.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
I'm interested in games where you can buy upgrades and stuff, so if you know any, post them here. RPGs don't count because all/most of them have shops. The Zelda games and stratregy games are not worth mentioning either.
The ones I know so far:
NES:
Deadly towers
Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest
GENESIS/MEGA DRIVE:
Rock'n'Roll Racing
Ghostbusters
SNES:
Rock'n'Roll Racing
PSX:
Parasite eve 2
DC:
Shenmue 1 & 2
PS2:
Devil may cry and the sequels
PS3:
MGS4
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
bisqwit, i've been trying to do an astral projection (going out of your body). what's your opinion about astral projection? those who have experienced it often say that their body and soul is connected by a silver cord (kinda like the spiritual equivalence of the umbilical cord) and if this cord is severed, you die. the bible seems to mention the silver cord in Ecclesiastes 12:6-7.
i've heard that it's possible that a hacker might get into your body and possess you while you are away from your body. some say that astral projection isn't even real, that it's just some kind of dream. the experiences that i've had so far are much like lucid dreams, except that it starts from my bed and i experience leaving my body, so i don't think i've had a real projection yet. i tried to test if it was a dream by looking how much the clock was, but the clock didn't match the time in reality so it was probably a dream.
GMan wrote:
2 times infinity is not infinity, but a larger infinity, if multiplying the original infinity by 2 is defined at all.
sounds like nonsense to me. infinity by definition is... infinite... so it can't become larger.
badass... especially at around 113333 where you warp from the zora fairy place to the zombie town, i was wondering wtf you were doing.
this game seems to have a lot of glitches... but maybe it's just that it's a famous game, so many people have tried to find stuff in it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
MrGrunz wrote:
the idea was to go to spirit temple as adult with lots of superslides, what is actually the thing, that seems to make it quicker
requiem of spirit would be skipped completely
boths routes are very close, but in the end, it turned out to be best to do deku tree as adult, go to spirit temple as child and get bombchus, do DC and jabu then and get adult
why even do the deku tree? i thought it was possible to skip all medallions by going through the door of time. but i guess you're doing some kind of all-medallion TAS?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Warp wrote:
Some practicing atheists just love building strawmen by simplifying things to the point where they sound ridiculous.
i think atheism is better than religion because religion is so old-fashioned. it's silly to follow a 5000 year old book. humanity has changed and advanced a lot since then. i don't mind people who believe in religion though... because religion will not survive long against science anymore. but the "problem" with religion is that they're right about some things, like the souls and afterlife, so science will probably prove their existence in the future, which will give more credibility for religions again.
most religious people cool and nice people. there are just a few extremists (like fred phelps), and they give a bad name for christianity and islam, because atheists mostly only see the "bad" things in religion.
Warp wrote:
Or maybe people behave badly because they choose to behave badly? Is it God's doing if people choose to do the bad thing?
if god wouldn't have created anybody, then nobody would behave badly. humans can't be responsible for anything, and they can't be blamed for anything. if we create a child, we can't be blamed for what the child does, or if we create robots who can choose, we can't blame for what they choose, because we didn't choose to exist. god created us.
but the funny thing is that even god can't be blamed, and he can't be responsible for anything either, because he didn't choose to exist either. since nobody is truly responsible for anything, anybody can take responsibility.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
Paused wrote:
That one is pretty lame.
maybe, but the purpose of speedruns is to be fast, so it doesn't matter if they are lame or boring. radix from SDA said that they don't make entertainment; they make speedruns. entertainment is just a common side effect of speed. but in tasvideos, we don't only care about speed, we also care if the TASes are entertaining.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(93)
Joined: 5/10/2005
Posts: 1204
mz wrote:
I haven't tried this one yet, but I think you are correct. Though I don't know why darkwasabi didn't use it...
he didn't know about it back then. his speedrun is a little outdated. he later found several improvements to the run (for example, renaming Squall into S would save some time) and he was going to make another speedrun, but he never finished it.