Messages

It would probably cause your computer to go into meltdown, both sound very hardware intensive.

could someone tell me the TRUE reason ( if it is known)

I was once (and I still might write a novel about it) going to write a pen and paper scenario. Basically the party goes on this little quest the defeat this terrible foe and then on the moment of victory, get transported to an alternate universe, were all the civilised races are savage and all the savage races were civilised. Thought it was a good idea and I still do.

well the game concept sounds interesting, I do not recomend using ripped stuff. Though at least you are designing your own levels, but it still isn't the greatest. imho

well that’s the OLD testament, I think the NEW testament calls on us to do good Ã, to others regardless of race or religion or sexual orientation.
I think its says somewhere something like, if you do good in ANYONES name you are doing good and that’s good, but if you do evil in Jesus name then you do evil, even though you do it in his name. So lets not get bogged down in rituals and religion, just do things to help the people around you. And the world, in some small way, will be a better place.

we could always give him THIS trophy 

well except for the hair in one, the pictures seemed to be connected in an animated way. even if they were not animated at first. as for calling them poses, the legs were EXACTLY the same.

I agree, Intelligent design is inane. It merle forces back the question, within our own universe were all the same laws of physics apply. Why do I believe in an extra universal god (or gods)? Think of this example. Let us say we build an intelligent AI, but instead of putting it in a robot we put it in a virtual 3D world. How would the AI figure out his origin? And that of his world?
No I don't think we are in the matrix or something like that, I just think we are an experiment, by a being (or beings) who have a whacked sense of humor, but with a sense of artistry that is astounding. That is my belief and whether it is right or wrong, we will never know, for we could just be phantoms in the bubble.
(edit) Hillbilly. I was just commenting on what you posted

Now I agree that doing stickman art doesn't mean BAD. (we had a MAGS were it was required) it is the animation that is bad. it appears, as you say andrail, to be simply a try to be as bad as possible. thats all.

No those arguments don't. In fact they hurt the argument. Btw Becky your "29+" link isn't working. Hillbilly I don't believe in a God that works on a "basis of reward and punishment"
One interpretation of the New Testament says that the Christian doesn't god doesn't work that way either. But that is beside the point. Becky. Yes of COURSE not every creature fossilised. That is of course perfectly logical. BUT doesn't it seem rather odd that the creatures that we find in the fossil record are almost exclusively the either completely new, or almost exactly like the ones we see now. Just a thought 

Asked to explain how a goldfish could be created by shaking a goldfish bowl, we're conveniently asked to disregard the infinite beyond the bowl. 

But when you say the universe is infinite, something that would explain all my qualms except WERE the universe came from, you run it oblers paradox ( it hink that is how it is spelled)

COOL!! so you could make games like say, "Grim fendango" and "monkey island 4" ?

well both sides of the issue should be welcome.thanks Grapefruitologist. and Adamski ? post some yourself, it would be most welcome. thanks in advance.

sorry, but whenever I think of D&D I think of a d&d type game played by your dorm buddies "Sorcery 101: sorcerers get all the girls"

ok, "abiogenesis". Geesh, semantics. (your right)
meaning " an orgin of life, without life" right?
fine "abiogenises doesnt make sense to me"
but now if you want, lets discuss evolution.

I admit, yes the laws of thermodynamics could be proved wrong. of course they can. But there is much observable proof. .that the likelihood is quite unlikely. if you can prove that the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, please take a bow and claim your Nobel prize.
(Edit)
I already read that, The example they claim creationists agree upon are NOT spontaneous. A seed, a chick are directed by the encoded information within genetics. The salt crystals are given order by the chemical laws that govern there molecular structure. Maybe I don't understand thermodynamics, I have about reached the limit of my understanding here, but it doesn't have to do with thermodynamics, but I still think evolution doesn't make sense.

I realize this thing we call life is just chemicals. like duh :. (Sarcasm) Wonderful stuff this argument. But I am still, from looking at the datum, mostly convinced otherwise. I have about reached the limit of my scientific understanding. Yes we are talking of mind boggling amounts of time but the world does not hold its breath a molecule upon molecule comes together BY CHANCE, to make this molecular machines. The same chances that bring it together will also tear it apart. Of course I don't think it would be from molecule to fully formed bacteria, it couldn't be like that. But while it is forming, and before it forms defensive measures, such as reproduction it would be broken apart by the same accidents. Maybe it did happen this way (but I have other problems with evolution as well) But I think that the laws of thermodynamics would prohibit, from forming up to the complexity required.

But there is a  huge gap between a polymer and a self replicating polymer. yes the first life wouldn't be as complex as the simplest modern life, of course. AS i said for things to evolve they need to reproduce. How could the molecules "cooperate?" What I am saying is, lets say some molecules get together, forming these biomachines.  But since they don't reproduce yet, they are highly vulnerable. A single lighting  could destroy the whole thing. Unlikely you say? On the time scale you are talking of it accidents becomes increasingly likely.  most accidents are detrimental to a systems order, only a few ( very few) are helpful. it is like walking two steps forward one step back. And yes I did read the article, very fascinating.
It is still though conjecture

what I meant was BEFORE LIFE WAS LIFE, how could it evolve a way to reproduce? Ã, Evolution REQUIRES reproduction, the errors made by the process are its modus operandi. But non-life(things not molecular machines) do not reproduce. THAT is what separates life from non life. Even viruses, so simple" that they an be grown as crystals, reproduce.( with the aid of other life). But reproduction is so complex that the molecules can not gave just come together by pure heat energy chance. The molecules would be destroyed faster then they would be formed. That is what I mean.
{edit new posts} Yes, I agree complexity can come from "simple things" but clouds are not simple, yes they are "just" water vapor. but it is the INTERACTION that is complex, plus clouds, a good example of chaos theory, DO NOT REPRODUCE. And fractals yes they are beautiful intricate, but they are also quite similar. all they way down to infinite. Life is not a fractal or a cloud, it is a MACHINE. as I said before. Oh and if I don't understand what life is, then could you explain to this poor benighted creationist what life IS? I agree as well the question “who designed the designer?” question is a good one. even as a young lad when I heard of the “intelligent design theory” I immediately thought well then were did the aliens come from? And I lived in a house of ultra conservative evangelical Christian bible thumpers. That is why I hypothesize an extra-universal God.(or Gods) For all we know ( I admit it is rather illogical, but…prove me wrong) conditions might be more favorable for evolution “outside” have you ever looked up theories that the universe is a Ã, hologram? www.earthportals.com/hologram.html
[ to Helm]
and so am I, I also wish to know how the universe works I am not going to ever say "this far man shall go and no further" Rubbish, I want to know! If God (or Gods) created the universe, I want to know how, if none did, I still want to know how!

Back on the evolution front, I have this to say. Yes an Ovum and sperm are made up of dead matter, in fact all life is made up of matter. And that is all life is. BUT life is a machine. A reproducing, self-repairing machine. It is nanotechnology of the type we read in sci-fi. Little atomic machines all scurrying round all with specialized tasks, all synchronized to and requiring mostother functions to work. And that is why I don't believe in the primordial soup theory of the origin of life. I do not say the laws of thermodynamics prohibit evolution (I have other objections to that) that is life EVOLVING to other life.what I do say is this intricately fashioned machine of such utter complexity can not come from simply a bunch of disorganized chemicals. Without life to arrange it into complexity. Maybe I should have said. Self replicating, self repairing complexity, both in form and interaction, does not appear spontaneously As someone said, it is like expecting a tornado to go through a junk yard, (even a airplane junk yard) and a 747 to be formed. Back on the issue at hand, Yes the question of life aren't important, t o the laymen, but the job of science is to tease apart the obvious, and look at the underlying princebels, Helm.