WingCommander-Simulator ? ?

[Quarto]

Originally posted by Knitewing
Macro evolution, changes between species, is unproven. Not one fossile of a "missing link" has ever been found.

Note that you only provide examples from human evolution. If you bothered to look at other species (there is a hell of a lot more than one species on Earth, you know), you would come to a different conclusion. Whether the archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur or the first bird remains undecided, but what is generally agreed upon is that the archeopteryx is the link between dinosaurs and birds. Isn't that enough of a "missing link"? Furthermore, it has been noted that there is a lot less fossils of humanoids than other animals - it is guessed that this is probably because they had enough intelligence to avoid the tar-pits and other places ideal for fossilisation. If that is the case (though that of course is arguable), then humanoids would be a very bad choice of proof for either side of the evolution debate.

Oh, and the argument that life only had 400 million years to develop on Earth is just plain silly - there's fossil evidence that life on Earth nearly went extinct 700 million years ago . And stromatolites appeared around 2.8 billion years ago - since we've got fossils of the buggers, this is as close to a fact as you can get with such ancient history.

 

[Frosty]

Well Knitewing, all your arguments about probability and what some atheist (is that supposed to make him credible?) said really don't mean anything.

You can belch out as many statistics and quotes as you like, it doesn't change the facts. Your logic would have one believe that all species originated at the same point out of thin air and haven't changed since that point, which is obviously not true, and fossil records prove it.

Now, since something cannot spring forth from nothing, it is only logical and sensible to assume that we evolved from another species as a result of the processes I outlined previously.

And by the way double-posting is for nitwits, we do have an

button, use it.

 

[Knitewing]

Quarto I only posted human examples because that's what most people are familiar with.

The fossile evidence you refer to about dating some life on earth back 700 million years and 2.8 billion years is from an antiquated carbon dating system which no one uses anymore because it was wildly inaccuarate. Please use modern science, not science fiction.


Frosty you are absolutely right. We didn't just spring from thin air. God created us.

Dose's comments do say that leading scientist have no idea what happened because all their theories have been proven false. I mentioned he was an athiest to show he is not biased on the side of religion obviously.

Originally posted by Frosty
You can belch out as many statistics and quotes as you like, it doesn't change the facts.

Now that makes alot of sence. The Statistics I "spouted" are facts. The quotes are from leading scientists in thier fields. You guys are beating a drum that was made in the 1800's when scientists thought that cells were just blobs of protoplasm and had no idea the complexity involved with making even the simplest living cell. Even Darwin on his death bed said he wasn't sure. Einstien said that all things point to God.

Why are you guys so resistant to the idea of God with all the facts laid out in front of you? (By facts I mean stuff from 1970 to present )


Note my rank of cadet. Obviously I haven't been using this forum long enough to be familiar with it. Your general buddy Quarto should know better though. Thanks for the tip

 

[Frosty]

Originally posted by Knitewing
Why are you guys so resistant to the idea of God with all the facts laid out in front of you? (By facts I mean stuff from 1970 to present )

I vigorously question the belief that God and evolution are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[Knitewing]

Read the bible then. If you can accept that there is a God then why not accept that he created all things as stated in the bible? Certainly he has the power.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

The bible *specifically* says that God has made a number of creatures that creepeth and that, further, he has given *me* dominion over them.

I'll accept anything you zealots want to rant about if you'll just tell me where I can pick up my creepething creatures.

 

[Knitewing]

Go out into the woods and grab all you want. *L*

Zealot. I like the sound of that. I may change my call sign *LOL*

You might try looking that word up in a dictionary before you assign it to anyone else based on a couple of posts on a message board.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Yay for dictionary.com

zeal·ot Pronunciation Key (zlt)
n.

a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
b. A fanatically committed person.

Either way, it applies to everyone in this thread -- no matter what their side.

Also: these creatures suck. I was expecting, say, a giant millipede. What kind of just God wouldn't give me dominion over a giant millipede?

 

[Knitewing]

I'm sure God has no problem with you dominating a giant millipede. Just go out and find yourself one to dominate *G* BTW You might want to check with the local authorities before bringing it home. *L*

 

[Frosty]

Originally posted by Knitewing
If you can accept that there is a God then why not accept that he created all things as stated in the bible?

There's a certain bit of poetry in how the Bible explains certain facts to us as men. We are meant to understand things, but not necessarily their specifics. It is, after all, a holy book, and not intended to educate us in the finer scientific points of how we came to be.

God and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive concepts, and it confuses me that people are so eager to treat them as such. For God to create Man, he does not need to literally make a man (though it might be said in so many words to cut to the chase,) but rather simply set in motion a series of events (what we would call evolution) which resulted in our coming into existence.

Catch my drift?

 

[Knitewing]

I completely understand your veiw point and I agree that god guided evolution is a possibility. I will maintain my belief in the bible version until someone can prove evolution. I certainly will not begrudge you your beliefs though.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Okay, okay, cool, that makes sense.

Now here's the rub: if I'm *Jewish* God also promises me a creepething creature, right? But no Jesus... So as a Christian is my creature made *more powerful* or *less powerful* by Jesus? This would be important to know, were I ever in a creature fight with a Jewish person.

Also, what do Muslims get? Some kind of horse?

 

[Knitewing]

Not real sure. I'ld say more powerful with Jesus because he freed us from the restraints of Jewish law. So if you got into a creature fight the Jewish person would have to follow a bunch of rules and you wouldn't. I won't even go into the muslim thing *L*

 

[Rampage3051]

Originally posted by Knitewing
Read the bible then. If you can accept that there is a God then why not accept that he created all things as stated in the bible? Certainly he has the power.

The bible that most people are familiar with (the antiquated King James version, which has influence in just about every Book written since) is almost exclusively taken literally; the King James version was written and heavily modified, manipulated and edited my male authoritarians more than 500 years ago in order for the male populace to remain in power " 'cause God says so."
And before you discount my words as those of some ranting feminist zealot, I am a young man who has spent years speaking to religious and non-religious figures on both sides of the fence, in regards to the literal-ness of the bible. Hebrew texts discovered fairly recently, and the remnants of those that ole' Jamesy didn't burn (yes, burn ) after he effectively rewrote them, show basic similarities to what is written in the bible; however, what is actually in the vast majorities of modern King James-based bibles show just one (rather close-minded) interpretation of what was written by scholars nearly two thousand years ago.
Thus, if one is to take what is written in the bible as true, then one must take it metaphorically (at least in most cases), and occasionally, depending on the translation, with a grain of salt; remember, folks, these things weren't originally written in English, and they were translated very long ago.

Originally posted by Frosty
There's a certain bit of poetry in how the Bible explains certain facts to us as men.

Exactly

Personally, though, I believe that there is some semblance of a supreme being--or, if not a single entity, then a supreme existence --in the universe, and it (or he or she if you like) had some hand in setting Life, the Universe, and Everything in motion.
Including evolution/creation and the Kilrathi.

 

[milo]

I guess no one really wanted to discuss realism in space simulations after all. Oh well.

By the way, for those of you arguing that "evolution has been proven to be impossible," quite the reverse is true. A reasonable scientific definition of the theory of evolution is this:

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

Evolution, as defined by the biologists who study it, has been observed to happen, in the laboratory and in the field. Period. End of story. To say that you don't believe in evolution is rather like saying that you don't believe in gravity.

Now, you can use a Humpty-Dumpty argument and claim that you have a different personal definition of evolution that you don't believe in, but don't then expect any rational person to be able to follow your argument.

 

[Knitewing]

Originally posted by Rampage3051


The bible that most people are familiar with (the antiquated King James version, which has influence in just about every Book written since) is almost exclusively taken literally; the King James version was written and heavily modified, manipulated and edited my male authoritarians more than 500 years ago in order for the male populace to remain in power " 'cause God says so." ....

Thus, if one is to take what is written in the bible as true, then one must take it metaphorically (at least in most cases), and occasionally, depending on the translation, with a grain of salt; remember, folks, these things weren't originally written in English, and they were translated very long ago.

1) I prefer the NIV version which is translated from the hebrew texts you mentioned. Never did like Jamesy *G*

2) Even in Jamesey's version men stopped reading after "God made man head of the woman..." The rest of it reads "as Christ is head of the church." Christ didn't come down to earth to dominate a nd rule the church but as a servant. The passage you are refering to is in Ephesians 5 BTW and the apostle Paul who wrote it was talking about servant leadership, or leading by example for men.

My father is one who stops reading. He has been divorced three times. My wife is thankful I kept reading. I let her run the show unless I'm strongly opposed to something she wants to do. Amazingly when ever I have raised one of those objections she's gone my way.

Kilrathi's have it MUCH harder. Completely male dominated society. Women who might actually have something to contribute are kept under lock and key. Now thats brutal


Milo once again we have to make a distinction between Micro and Macro evolution. Micro evolution is proven while macro isn't.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Originally posted by Knitewing
Not real sure. I'ld say more powerful with Jesus because he freed us from the restraints of Jewish law. So if you got into a creature fight the Jewish person would have to follow a bunch of rules and you wouldn't. I won't even go into the muslim thing *L*

I've got to admit, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[junior]

Originally posted by Rampage3051

And before you discount my words as those of some ranting feminist zealot, I am a young man who has spent years speaking to religious and non-religious figures on both sides of the fence, in regards to the literal-ness of the bible. Hebrew texts discovered fairly recently, and the remnants of those that ole' Jamesy didn't burn (yes, burn ) after he effectively rewrote them, show basic similarities to what is written in the bible; however, what is actually in the vast majorities of modern King James-based bibles show just one (rather close-minded) interpretation of what was written by scholars nearly two thousand years ago.

Much as I believe the current versions of the Bible don't directly correspond to what was originally printed down, I don't think you should lay the blame on King James and his committee. After all, if he did all that you seem to blame him for, then it would simply be a matter of taking the old Catholic Latin texts (which have been around for an awfully long time, and afaik, are the same now as they were at least a couple of centuries before the KJV) and comparing them to the KJV. Any and all blame goes MUCH further back than a group of Englishmen trying to translate the Bible into English.

 

[Lelapinmechant]

Originally posted by Knitewing

Milo once again we have to make a distinction between Micro and Macro evolution. Micro evolution is proven while macro isn't.

They seem to flow quite easily into one another. How does it makes sense that "Micro" evolution, the mutation of small genetic traits within a few generations, could not lead to "macro" evolution, the development of a new species as a result of many, many such mutations taking place?
Micro: Animal "A" gets thumb. Micro: Animal "A" Gets Hips for walking upright. Micro: Animal "A" starts thinking allot, develops use of tools.

All of the sudden becomes

Macro: Animal "A" is now animal "B".

I could be flawed in my understanding, though. Feel free to correct me.

 

[Lelapinmechant]

Originally posted by Frosty
"2)" in your reply seems to be based on the assumption that Kilrathi actually are cats.That you find one complete fiction more believable than another is a bit confusing to me.

No; that they are creatures who for some reason evolved identical traits to cats, i.e., same eyes, retractible claws, etc. Which would mean they would have needed these traits more than others. Why would an animal that evolves all the same traits as cats also need to evolve various traits of humans(standing upright, thinking on the same level, etc.)?

However, I concede your point. It's fiction. Fiction is fiction, no matter which way you slice it. Okay. It's just that personally, I have an easier time believing in a sentient computer than I do ina walking talking kitty-like life form. I guess that's just me. Thank you, however, for not being mean this time