I don’t think it was planned, but when humans appeared and had enough intelligence I think he decided to communicate.
So one day god was looking at the stuff he set into motion and noticed there was something intelligent. He then said, “Hi!” scared the creatures and thought, aww, they seem cute until they started killing each other.
As for my questions about the laws of physics you missed the point. It’s not how things work, it’s why it works that way.
I still believe in God because one thing that can never be explained is why forces work the way the do. Why is their gravity? Why do Newton’s laws exist? However, in my view God leaves things alone, watching how things turn out and since we (humans) have shown intelligence in being able to comprehend the idea of God he has communicated with us through the biblical prophets and loves us.
@stuka:
covering the same topics over and over again.
So did I.
It’s called brainwashing…. :P … at least, for me. :wink:
But hey, don’t take my word for it. You believe what you wish. I have no problems with the beliefs of Christians. Where I do have a problem is when they try to pry their beliefs into my way of life. That doesn’t happen too often but it is real annoying when it does.
I wouldn’t call it brainwashing because of the negative conotation. It was more like the way things are repeated in school.
I say accident b/c life as we know it would not have survived the vacuum of space like you mentioned in an earlier post.
Also, S.P. I find Christianity works with evolution. Genesis is just the story the early Jews came up with to explain why the thing are the way they are. It’s not mentioned in the Bible that God spoke to someone and told him what happened. Correct me if I’m wrong though, my knowledge of the Bible consists of about ten years of sunday school covering the same topics over and over again.
I had a science teacher in sixth grade who didn’t believe in Darwin’s theory. That just seemed wrong. Look at the many different breeds of cats and dogs. They evolved, it was human forced, but technically they did evolve.
When you take away someone’s free will it is not a good thing. If someone wanted to work for room and board that’s fine. Also, people could have gotten food, shelter and training without being a slave. Why would Moses struggle so hard to have his people freed if the Israelites were happy?
Having fun is the most important because people don’t want to play games unless they are fun. Winning just makes the game more fun. I think the other options make the game more fun.
I would buy subs as Germany if I wanted to bolster my navy. Aircraft carriers in the Atlantic is just a bad idea. As for the American threat, wait until after GB and Russia have fallen.
I doubt if Alexander would have conquered Northern Europe. He probably would have gone after the Carthigians and/or Romans if he had lived longer.
Slavery in and of itself is not wrong. The Bible had strict regulations on slavery but it was still condoned. It was even possible to buy your way out of slavery.
How can a slave get any money to buy himself out of slavery? If you think slavery isn’t wrong then why don’t you work for crappy food and water? Slavery is a horrible thing!
Slavery became wrong when it was based on genetics and not actions. Enslaving an enemy soldier as a servant is not wrong. Enslaving a person because they have more or less melanoma in their skin is wrong.
Melanoma is cancer. Pigment is the word. I guess enslaving enemies is better than sacrificing them to the gods. Oh, and guess how slave traders got slaves? Warring African tribes would enslave their enemies and then sell them to the slave traders! So technically, that slave trade was based on war, not race. It is ok now?
Aren’t two hit BBs a rule in AAE?
Well all counties are reorganized and resized periodically. Just look into the redistricting in England during the 1800s with the “rotten boroughs”. Also, its possible that the borders like most regions are vague and poorly defined.
I know that France restructured into departments, but I am refering to the size of Alsace-Lorraine as it was prior to the French Revolution. Go to http://img.www.france.com/maps/france.jpg I admit that Alsace itself by the looks of it was already fully annexed, but there was still a part of Lorraine that was not.
@theSexualHarrassmentPanda:
Probably not. With Alsace-Lorraine there were some marginally Germanic speakers(not Germans but Germanic speakers). To the extent that it was more German than french though is suspect. On the otherhand Poland was Polish and the Germans would not have wanted to integrate Poles within their national identity. Already at this time mass amounts of Eastern migration from Poland was entering Germany and was causing friction. If you suddenly annex this group you must incorporate them within the nationalist framework which would’ve been hard for Germany to do given its political climate at the time. More likely is a Polish superstate composed of Poland, Lithuania, White Russia, Rumelia and even possibly Latvia would’ve been what they would’ve done. Poland would’ve been strong enough to serve as a buffer against Russia but not strong enough to resist Germany.
Good point. I was unaware of the immigration/ethnicity problem. Now a buffer state does sound much more likely than an annexation.
Also while the French gave the Germans part of Alsasce-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War I think that a German WWI victory would have given the rest of Alsasce-Lorraine to Germany
First of all there is no “rest of Alsace-Lorraine” these were merely two countries taken from france and added to Germany. Had Germany won WWI it is questionable whether they would’ve added any territory at all b/c protecting the territorial integrity is important to ward off other rivals as well such as England.
First off, the Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk gave the Germans a considerable amount of territory
But that doesn’t mean they would’ve annexed it into Germany proper. In fact they too probably would’ve resurected Greater Poland but as a german satellite. Direct control would not have been necessary or wise.
At the of the Franco-Prussian War Alsace-Lorraine was a part of France. In my atlas showing the historical French provinces, Alsace and Lorraine are larger than what the Germans took in the Franco-Prussian War. Also,
considering the way the German Empire was at the time, a polish state probably would have been formed as the imperial territory of Poland or something like that. In my German book from 1914 (I got it at a library booksale) Alsace-Lorraine is called an imperial territory.
Well this makes assumptions including that such a German empire would be viable for very long, and that the Germans would’ve done this. It also assumes that history is progressionist/progressivist. I find it ironic that many of those here who fall on the right politically are social progessivists when it comes to other matters such as history and culture. Hmm I guess their only against one kind of evolution. Anyway the most important assumption here is that Germany would’ve built an empire and annexed France. I find it more likely that they would’ve done something similar to 1870 with France, annexed small territories in the East and West and built many more smaller and satellite states.
First off, the Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk gave the Germans a considerable amount of territory (which was turned into Poland by the Treaty of Versailles). Also while the French gave the Germans part of Alsasce-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War I think that a German WWI victory would have given the rest of Alsasce-Lorraine to Germany, but definitely not the rest of France!
This is my three hundredth post! :D
World War I ended in a German victory and Germany now dominates the world (like the U.S. does in real life) and stretches from Alsasce-Loraine to the Pripet Marshes in the east. Russia never grew powerfull, communism never spread. Germany eventually became a democracy with the Kaiser and his family in a position similar to the British monarchy.
I like the rts games, but I think they would be alot better if they let players focus more on warfare. Building the economy and managing all the resources is a pain. But in Star Craft I have played custom maps of WWI and WWII where you get “taxes” every once in a while from all the “cities” you control. That was always fun.
5.56x45mm NATO 7x43mm EM-2 7.6x39mm M43 7.62x51mm NATO
bullet weight 4.01 g (62 gr) 9.08 g (140 gr) 7.9 g (122 gr) 9.72 g (150 gr)
bullet velocity, at muzzle 921 m/s 745 m/s 710 m/s 860 m/s
bullet velocity, at 300 yards (273 meters) 585 m/s 570 m/s 470 m/s 674 m/s
bullet velocity, at 550 yards (500 meters) 385 m/s 450 m/s 341 m/s 516 m/s
bullet energy, at muzzle 1700 J 2519 J 1991 J 3594 J
bullet energy, at 300 yards (273 meters) 686 J 1475 J 872 J 2207 J
bullet energy, at 550 yards (500 meters) 297 J 919 J 460 J 1294 J
5.56 weighs 12g and 7.62x51 weighs 24. The person with the 5.56 fires with 3 round burst, the person with the 7.62 fires semi-auto. 3 shots=1 kill or 1 shot = 1 kill? Which is better? 36g or 24g? A 30 round 5.56 will get you ten pulls of the trigger if set on 3 round burst (the 3 round burst compensates for the smallness of the round. A 20 round 7.62 will give you 20 pulls.
The original is just a classic and the board is better looking. Remember, you can always apply the new rules the original and the board in the original is just so much better looking.
So what if your GF hates AA, just don’t make her play it.
I would love this rule because it would also allow me to use my AA guns more effectively in my AA gun/ artillery house rule.