Mass: We Pray! The game

[monkey0506]

Apparently whilst I wasn't looking during the course of the last five years all the facts on what used to be called the "theory" of creation have been rewritten and it is now no longer even considered as a legitimate "hypothesis" and is written off as nothing more than the wet dream of a bunch of deranged fanatics.

As for the flood and the idea of being "zapped into existence instantly" neither of those have been scientifically disproved. I fail entirely to see how one could even suppose to definitively disprove the presence of water upon the face of the earth at various points thousands of years ago. Especially given the fact that the face of the earth itself is constantly changing with erosion, continental drift, etc. If creation had been disproved it wouldn't still be called the "theory" of evolution. Of course it's treated as if it's fact anyway.

Regarding the age of the Earth I've never seen anywhere that strictly states the earth to have been created 6000 years ago. The timespan of creation itself is debatable, much of the "historical" (religious based) texts on the matter have lost meaning in translation, not to mention the sheer fact that the modern Bible has been greatly edited and censored.

And simple claims don't need to be disproven.

I'm sorry, but isn't this the very purpose of science? To effectively and definitively prove or disprove every single idea that may ever cross the realm of human imagination? Of course according to various articles on Wikipedia the purpose of science is simply to rewrite "fact" based upon popular opinion, as the "authorities" deem fit.

So pardon me if my sources on what was once called the "theory of creation" were somewhat dated. I hadn't been watching it like a hawk during the course of the last five years whilst the "facts" have been rewritten. Carry on then.



Also I like the way everyone ignored the point I was trying to make (albeit based on skewed information) in favour of pointing out how brain-dead I must be for having religious beliefs.



Does anybody else think that this game should in fact be called "Mass: Wii Pray!"?

[Chicky]

Does anybody else think that this game should in fact be called "Mass: Wii Pray!"?

I'm guessing Nintendo didn't want them promoting their satanic next gen game by exploiting the Power Glove Gamecube.

[Phemar]

Actually evolution has been pretty much proven.

Scientific fact: Gene mutation does occur in all species during transcription.
Scientific fact: These mutations can give an organism a higher chance of reaching the age of maturity without dying.
Scientific fact: Given a long enough period of time and constanty changing environmental factors (which we do have on earth), one species can end up looking and behaving radically different to its predecessors. (and no, there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution, it's the same thing.)

There is not one thing that cannot be explained by evolution. (And don't give me that irreducible complexity stuff like bacterial flagellum or the eye, because believe it or not it can be explained!)

I'm sorry, but isn't this the very purpose of science? To effectively and definitively prove or disprove every single idea that may ever cross the realm of human imagination? Of course according to various articles on Wikipedia the purpose of science is simply to rewrite "fact" based upon popular opinion, as the "authorities" deem fit.

No, that is called shifting the burden of proof. Once something unknown is observed, a rational explanation based on existing evidences is created. If further evidence disproves the current explanation, a new one is formulated. That is the scientific process.

Since there is no evidence to support creationism and plenty of evidence to support evolution, there is no reason to attempt to prove something as outrageously ridiculous as creation.

Also, if evolution had to suddenly be disproved by new evidence, I wouldn't cry myself to sleep about it. I would simply change my opinion to the new explanation, as it would be the most rational one available at the time.

That, is the scientific way.

[Calin Leafshade]

Theory, in a scientific sense, is the highest level of proof possible. Definitive proof is only valid in mathematics.

We also have the theory of gravity and atomic theory (both of which by the way have LESS supporting evidence than evolution) but no one questions those.

And yes the global flood HAS been disproved through geological records. It would be very very easy to detect a massive global flood in the strata but it just isnt there. It never happened.

Also the idea of being 'zapped into existence' have also been proven wrong due to a great deal of things. We understand a lot about the formation of planets and the evolution of species and absolutely NOTHING points to someone clicking their fingers. It just doesn't fit the evidence.

as for the age of the earth, biblical scholars date the creation story to have taken place between about 5500 BC and about 4000 BC.
They come to this age using the genealogies present in the bible starting with the creation of Adam (who lived till he was 930 years old by the way).
Christians who do not believe in evolution generally accept this time scale. (the pentecostal faith teaches the earth is likely to end within their lifetimes too)

[Huw Dawson]

I did read an interesting article on a theory about how a flood came to be mentioned in the Bible. In essence, it goes like this:

Black Sea area originally plains filled with people.
Straights then burst open, letting the entire Mediterranean Sea into Black Sea area. Massive flood ensues. Survivors tell stories of it.
Story mutates into Noah's Ark.

- Huw

[Intense Degree]

Actually evolution has been pretty much proven.

Scientific fact: Gene mutation does occur in all species during transcription.
Scientific fact: These mutations can give an organism a higher chance of reaching the age of maturity without dying.
Scientific fact: Given a long enough period of time and constanty changing environmental factors (which we do have on earth), one species can end up looking and behaving radically different to its predecessors. (and no, there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution, it's the same thing.)

There is not one thing that cannot be explained by evolution. (And don't give me that irreducible complexity stuff like bacterial flagellum or the eye, because believe it or not it can be explained!)

That's great news that I hadn't heard. Perhaps you could explain how water based life made it onto land?

[Phemar]

That's great news that I hadn't heard. Perhaps you could explain how water based life made it onto land?

Through a series of gradual, step by step changes.

[ThreeOhFour]

I want fins.

Where do I start? 

[Intense Degree]

That's great news that I hadn't heard. Perhaps you could explain how water based life made it onto land?

Through a series of gradual, step by step changes.

Thanks for clearing that up!

[GarageGothic]

I want fins.

Where do I start? 

Jump into the sea, if you drown it's natural selection.

[ThreeOhFour]

Jump into the sea, if you drown it's natural selection.

I tried your theory and all I got were these gills.

Stupid gills

[GarageGothic]

Damn, I knew I shouldn't have trusted Will Wright for lessons on evolution.

[InCreator]

And here's a nice interview with the game's creator...
http://www.adventureclassicgaming.com/index.php/site/interviews/547/
apparently God told him to make it.

Prophets have been always mistrusted and mocked...

[Calin Leafshade]

if youre truly interested to know how water based animals made it onto the land i can tell you :p

The first animals on land were arthropods. These animals dont have gills or lungs, they breathe using things in their body called sphericals which directly absorb oxygen from the air/water. It wasn't like a trout hopped out the water and gave the whole breathing thing a go.

However there are also animals with gills which live on land. The mudskipper for instance.

[Vince Twelve]

[Calin Leafshade]

I stand corrected. I didnt realise you had photographic evidence.