Posts made by Wargaming_nut

consider the unique adaptations certain species of animals have. the scientific explanation, evolution, is completely reasonable. within a species, there will be certain mutations, or abnormalities in the offspring every so often, which of course we can see in humans (midgets), and other animals (three legged dogs). some will be useful abnormalities, others will not. if the one which is useful helps the animal to survive better than the others, then it will breed more, the others will breed less, and eventually the population will “evolve” into the new breed of the animal, better adapted to its enviroment.

There is a distinction in science between micro-evolution, and macro-evolution. What you have described above is micro-evolution; changes within a species, allowing it to adapt to different environments. CY’s example of viruses changing is also micro-evolution, as was Darwin’s observation of the differences of beak size among the birds in the Galapagos islands. No one denies that micro-evolution exists; it can be observed throughout the world, and is an undeniable fact (different breeds of dogs are another example; same species, but with variation). What has never been shown, however, is that enough micro-evolution in the same creature can change that creature into a whole new species. More “advanced” species, such as humans, are not simply repetitive rearrangements of the same simple genetic material of, say, a snail. There is actual new, different, material. So here’s a question; can you give me a single example of a small change within a species (micro-evolution) resulting in entirely new genetic material being added to the species, thus resulting in an entirely new creature?

Actually, we have pretty much proven the concept of evolution to be true, or to actually occur.

What you have proven is the existence of micro-evolution, an irrefutable concept, which is totally removed from macro-evolution (the change of one species into an entirely new species). Everything you said about bacteria and viruses is true, but proves only the existence of micro-evolution. No proof has been brought forward of the existence of macro-evolution, and I challenge you to do so.

If evolution did not occur, then where did the bones of homo erectus come from? and why dont they exist today?

In 1981, Constance Holden wrote in Science magazine “The primary evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.” Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution

Henry Gee, Chief Science Writer for Nature magazine… “No fossil is buried with its birth certificate,” he wrote in 1999, and “the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.” ibid

The existence of bones which, at one point an unknown amount of time ago, were a creature which does not exist today, does not prove that we must be the descendants of that creature. What it does prove, however, is that a large amount of time ago a creature which could be either a sort of ape, or a modern human with a degenerate disease, walked the earth.

Or, how come humans today are, on average, several (i think it is 3) inches taller than the humans of the 10th century?

Better eating habits and greater nourishment are the most reasonable explanations (assuming you’re correct). Would you honestly say that evolution has caused people to get taller? Heck, Americans now are taller then Americans fifty years ago were; that doesn’t make us a different species.

we can, in time, do experiments and tests to observe their validity, and decide upon or change our reasons based on the results.

What sorts of experiments can you do to prove that humans evolved from apes about 200,000 years ago?

I suppose I have to back you up on that one, CC; far better that a cat destroys the game, and nobody wins, than to lose.

If the daughter had any sense, she’d set the house on fire; that has a better chance of getting you people away from the board than anything else. Unless, of course, you decide that the battle for Okinawa is more important than surviving, which I suppose I can sympathize with…

Fine by me.

So, correct me if I’m wrong, but you find it more likely that an unexplainable explosion billions and billions of years ago created all the matter in the universe, which, through the course of more billions of years, coalesced into the various galaxies, which then, through the course of a few more million (or billion, take your pick) years formed stars, planets, asteroids, etc., etc., and one of them happened to have the exact right conditions to suddenly develop life, which then evolved through another few million years into us? This is assuming, of course, that you don’t think we were planted here by aliens, which I know you’re too intelligent to believe 8)

Have you noticed one thing interesting about evolution? It presents a theory which would be considered ludicrous if it was said to have taken place over the course of, say, a month, but if you spread it out over the course of a billion billion years, it suddenly becomes not just valid, but likely. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to me…

I’d like to discuss with you again Janus, simply as a philosophical debate; if you want, we could PM it, so we don’t get booted for spamming ;).

Yes, I know, I just felt like asking that question of anyone who cared to answer 8) .

very well, agentsmith, if you are god, than smite me.

muttering If he only could…. ;) :D

Seriously, I have a question for you Janus; why should God pay any attention to the smiting requests of someone who doesn’t even believe God exists, just to prove he does?

Oh well; we had mostly beat the old topic to death anyway :P.

Ahh so idiocy is merely ignorance. Good to know that! Anyway if that’s true wouldn’t that make Dubya an idiot, as he was ignorant when it came to whether Iraq had WMDs. So in that sense wouldn’t Moore’s criticism be correct even if its not always 100% right.

It always comes back to W. for you, doesn’t it? I’m not even going to bother to reply, it won’t get anywhere. Look to CY’s definition, it’s better than mine

Well, an idiot would be an ignorant, or brutish-type of person. He might not necessarily be foolish; in fact, he might be very clever or wily, thus making him ignorant, but not foolish.

Interesting point, CY. Though apparently you’ve never met the girl I’m crazy about… :P The current main reason she won’t see me as more than a friend, is that she plans (one could almost say hopes) to never marry. Oh well, enough about me and my personal problems ;) :P. I agree with you, Atheism needs to be on the list, simply because it provides an outlet for the (in my humble opinion) great numbers of Atheists on these boards.

Like Janus said. Belief in the absence of something is not a religion. I’m Christian, I suppose you’d say Protestant, but no particular denomination.

But you and many other reactionaries have stated opinions here in favor of censorship how do you reconsile that with the bill of rights. Further, the far right often triumphs certain rights like to bear arms, but is often against free speech. How can you be in favor of one and not the other. Perphaps our society would be better off without free speech and guns, but herein lies the problem were do you stop.

Would you mind showing me the quote where I said I was in favor of censorship? And how do you define free speech? (btw, I’m in favor of the right to keep and bear arms; just FYI). If you mean letting MM mouth off about nothing, sure, I won’t restrict that. If you mean letting anyone who wants to to hang a Confederate flag out of his window, or put a statue of Lee or Davis on his lawn, I certainly have no problem with that. If you mean peaceful demonstration, I have no objections to that at all, whether I think the demonstrators are right or not. If you mean forcing newspapers to print the opinions of every moron who writes in, I would object to that. It all depends on what you mean by “restricting free speech,” and I can’t discuss it with you until I know what you mean.

Yes your scholastic insight into Communism/Bolshevism is laughable as well. Yes these govt’s are so bad for the people and yet how do you account for the fact that the people in China and Russia are far better off now than in the pre-Communist days. Considering the rapid improvement to the quality of life for the common person in these places perphaps you should rethink this. However, if you feel sorry for the average aristocrat, bandito, and warlord then I agree these types are far worse off than in the pre communist era. Are you saying you are against law and order?

So you truly think China and Cuba are better off with a communist government. And yet you objected when you thought I had called you commie? Which is it? Are you in favor of communism (in which case you ARE a communist, though I hadn’t accused you of that) or you’re lying when you say you think China is better off. Or, possibly, we have different ideas of what constitutes “better off.” Personally, I’d say a country where people are not allowed to vote, not allowed to demonstrate, and where free speech and dissenters are completely eradicated (just to name a few) is not better. But I suppose you can go ahead and see China as a golden paradise; just don’t say that in front of any refugees from that hell hole.

Oh no I smell an unreconstructed southerner/anti-federalist! Yes there is much to hate about Lincoln freeing the slaves, preserving the Union, and building the transcontinental railroad. I think this alone shows how far right the extreme right is when they can’t even own up to the legacy of their founding patriarch Abraham Lincoln. Indeed the far right is closer to Nazism than conservativism.

Lincoln only freed the slaves in the South, where he had no control (the Emancipation Proclamation, that document so revered by people like you, specifically says slaves in the North and parts of the South that had been conquered by the North, were to be exempt from this freeing), he forced another country into bondage (question; if the American Colonies had the right to secede from England, why didn’t the South?), and condoned the actions of Sherman and Sheridan, who started the wonderful tradition of total war by sacking Georgia and the Shenandoa Valley, respectfully. Oh, and by the way; I was born in New Hampshire, and have lived here all my life. That’s about as far north as you can get, Agent.

I don’t think there’s really any point in my continuing this argument with you, Agent; your entire case seems to be calling people who disagree with you (and, just for the heck of it, the entire right wing) Nazis. Maybe I’ll continue this with Falk who, even though I disagree with him frequently, tends to be reasonable.

Sorry I just had to laugh when I read this. So now you, a right wing conservative is accusing Lincoln a Republican of being a communist? You really need to learn some history there bud. Anyway isn’t it interesting how immediately WargamingNut had to throw the Communist label on me? No actually the first three words of the Constitution say WE THE PEOPLE and what I wrote was in reference to the whole of the people, by the people, for the people ethos of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but again we see that far right reactionaries are against the Bill of Rights much like the Nazis were…coincidence. I wonder what Falk and some of the Germans who post here think of similarities between this kind of thinking and the Nazism movement. There are afterall uncanny parallels.

When did I call Lincoln a communist? I don’t like him, I think many (if not all) of his policies were wrong, but I never said he was a communist. I mentioned communism because so many communist nations (example: The People’s Republic of China) claim to be “for the people,” when they’re so obviously for anything but “the people.” Hmmm…. “Far right reactionaries are against the Bill of Rights, much like the Nazis…” That almost sounded like a coherent argument… So close… ;). I’m perfectly for the Bill of Rights, Agent, and while I think MM is a contemptible person, I wouldn’t restrict his right to state what he thinks; that doesn’t mean I can’t make clear my dislike for him, and his ideas.

Maybe next time you should read exactly what I wrote, instead of jumping to conclusions, and assuming the worst. Might help you avoid making wild accusations and ending up sounding like a fool.

but is also contrary to the principles this nation was founded on like FOR THE PEOPLE.

Sorry, Agent; wrong again. That “for the people” quote is from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, not the Constitution or Declaration. Nowhere did the Founders say that the country was founded “for the people”; you’re thinking of something more like a communism.

Does Moore remind anyone else of a grease-covered slug? ;)

At least Rush has some credibility; he doesn’t outrightly lie. You can’t say the same about Moore.

Wow, everyone’s in favor of Star Wars. Ok, just to be annoying, I’ll say Star Trek :D. Actually, I don’t care at all. Don’t really like either :P. So, to avoid screwing up the polls, I won’t vote ;).

I wouldn’t count on that; let’s say the Germans reach Moscow on turn four. By that time, assuming Russia has bought nothing but Infantry for the past turns, and placed it all in Moscow, he should have around thirty Infantry. The Germans, assuming they have been buying all Tanks, should have bought around thirty-six Tanks. The Russians won’t have lost any Infantry in Moscow, but the Germans will have suffered pretty bad looses while they were marching through the other Russian territories. So let’s assume the Germans have a maximum of thirty tanks for the assault on Moscow, while the Russians have thirty Infantry, a fighter, and maybe a couple tanks. I would place money on the Germans losing that battle, or at least winning it with such horrific losses that the Russians can strike back and retake it. Plus, if England is buying fighters and, more importantly, bombers, he can conduct serious SBRs, and strafing attacks on German tanks, Infantry, and Industrial Complexes, greatly reducing German fighting capacity.

That’s a good strategy, with one little problem. Russia has 24 IPCs at the start; if he uses them to buy 8 Infantry, and places them all in Moscow, and does for a couple of turns, there is no possible way Germany can take Moscow. Russia can let all the rest of the country go to hell, he’ll keep Moscow. Heck, he can win even without losing the rest of the country, if UK and America are doing their job. So try that in your game; your brother might be surprised ;).

Aw, shucks ;). Well, it was worth a try :P.