tryto

You are calculating this assuming that it is based on chance, while biochemistry is obviously not chance. " It occurs as the result of chemical mechanisms operating in accord with the laws of chemistrythe unaided, unguided, but lawlike invisible hand of the chemical interactions internal to the system. Ignorance, sometimes willful ignorance, of the organizing power of natural mechanisms operating in accord with laws of nature, is an old creationist failing." You are assuming that there is only one possible form of cell, while in reality there are uncountable numbers of living molecules. You are ignoring that a huge amount of these "dice rolls" would be happening simultaneously, and assumes that the smallest molecule is also the simplest possible. In reality, there could literally be millions or billions of dice rolls occuring at once (the earth is a big place, and amino acids are tiny), and they have billions of years to work with.This is a farce. Just post all your Hovind arguments or wherever you are pasting these from all at once.

Hmm. Maybe I'll just keep pasting from talk.origins.

:-w Not even close to accurate. http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html This is exactly the kind of tactic creationists use to come up with the figures you quoted - holding onto the conclusions of isolated preliminary studies, ignoring contradictory evidence and avoiding critical analysis. That's not a scientific approach, it's a scientifically illiterate approach and feeds on the ignorance of the faithful who are taught to believe in creationism. Further information on this "argument" can be found on Talk Origins. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-sol ... c430357875 Pfft. Modern Humans only evolved around 160,000 years ago the last discovery I checked, while evidence of any form of culture is a mere 50,000 years, according to National Geographic. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... 6_omo.html As well, over this time, several ice ages and devastating environmental effects could and did occur.

I personally prefer whip for both steels and irons. Even for mithril dragons, the choice between a whip and a leaf-bladed sword is not very clear cut; the sword is a bit faster on average, but the whip has a spec bar, so you can check how long until you can use a godsword spec :P. It should depend on your attack level; I doubt there's much of a difference in accuracy at low-middling 90's, and whip has a strength bonus advantage.

Guide has been updated with more information. We've confirmed all but one location: "5. Near the Body Altar " Thanks for confirming most of the locations. [Edit]

Thanks, I've added what I could to the guide. Any corrections on the guide are fine to be posted here. If you have any information on the undiscovered locations, riddle solutions, or xp rates of trees, (those found already are posted viewtopic.php?f=30&t=784908 ), please post it in that topic( or here's fine) we're working on a complete list.

Oh no! I'm very sorry that that happened to you. I hope it doesn't affect any future updates for your character. Who could have expected that? In any case, I'm very glad of the information gained; it should be helpful for our information and quotes on the gods. We appreciate it.

If you think they probably disappear, it would probably be safer to open it first :P. Whatever you think would be best should work.

Did you know, that the Hebrew word for "day" in Genesis, means a literal day? And it's used over 100 other times in the OT, every time meaning a literal day? Source? I've heard otherwise. "And there was evening and there was morning-the first day." Genesis 1:5 http://www.eadshome.com/Day.htm

So you do believe that all living creatures have a "soul"? Is this the same "soul" that goes to the afterlife when you? In that case, do animals get sent to hell or heaven(if you subscribe to these places)? How about flies or bacteria? Do they have souls too? I don't mind at all, but I would like him to respond as well.

He specifically said "creation". That is all I am basing it off of. I interpreted "creation" as god creating the origin of life, although I suppose it could be construed as referring to the big bang as well. I only mentioned the bible because well, it is what he professes to believe in, and is the basis for his faith, having the only record of jesus' miracles. Creation is wholly different from abiogenesis, it's the complete antithesis of it. But, he also said that he accepts evolution, so I simply asked the question that is begged; why does he accept science to a point, but ceases at a seemingly arbitrary point(at least to me). As well, Raven; if you do accept evolution, at which point did we begin to have a "soul"?

Like I asked Zierro; how can you reconcile the brutal, wasteful, and violent nature of evolution and natural selection with a loving god, especially as an all powerful god would find it much much easier, and faster to simply create ex nihilo, as dictated by your bible? Also, why do you accept evolution but not abiogenesis?

I wrote that before you posted derrrrr :wall: Anyway, I still much prefer google. Google is a "search engine", where you find what you are looking for. StumbleUpon is a "discovery engine" where you find what you might like, but aren't looking for. They're wholly different; I use both.

Carl Sagan...truly a great man. May he rest in peace.

I guess you didn't like A Tale of a Tub then. How is religion different than any closely held political or social thought? What makes religion a special, beautiful, unique snowflake? You say that just because religion is the most closely held one, it cannot be attacked, but any other ones are not immune in this way? That's the most blatant case of special pleading I've seen in quite some time. "To rectify even one of these 'mistakes' that this alleged piece of satire points out would disestablish all known religion for ever and for always." One of the most closely held values of Nazism is racism. So therefore, satirizing racism is bad, because it would disestablish all known Nazism for ever and always. One of the most closely held values of American civilization is the constitution. Therefore, satirizing the constitution is bad because it would disestablish all known american civilization for ever and for always. Lighten up. This is a religion thread, debating the existence of your god. I'm sure that the existence of your god is a closely held belief, and if we rectified that, it would disestablish your religion. If you don't want to hear opposing viewpoints, even in the form of humour, I advocate staying out of these threads, or going to christianforums.com. Not all that relevant...I pasted in a good one about grapes a while ago, but I agree with you. Mostly that I've heard it before. Anywho, not relevant to raven acting like he is. What a piece of pure sophistry. Why would you call it "alleged" when you've already admitted that it is, indeed, satire?

Added, thanks :) The proof pic is especially appreciated.

The Virus Chest is a quarantine. http://www.avast.com/eng/whats_new_in_avast_v2.html#8 This is because, in case the thing you delete turns out to be necessary, you aren't screwed over, as you can restore it. If you're sure it's a virus or w/e, and you feel like it, delete it if you find it necessary. Items can also be removed from the chest by running Avast!, and going to the Chest module, highlighting those files under Infected Files one wants to remove, and selecting Delete.

If we were faster, stronger, and smarter than we presently are, then you could still argue that we should be faster, stronger, and smarter because there is still more room to improve unless you mean we should be infinitely fast, strong, and smart which doesn't make much sense to me. That would mean that those terms didn't even exist to us. You asked for how we could be better and I told you. With this logic, there is no point in trying to improve the human race, because we'll never reach infinity goodness, lol. If we were infinitely fast, we wouldn't be able to experience the joys of stopping to smell the roses. We also wouldn't be able to have races. If we were infinitely strong, we wouldn't need to workout and become inspired by the progress we made. We also wouldn't be able to have competition - since we'd all be the same, and competition is a beautiful thing if you ask me. It's the little things that make life what it is. Life is not a mission if that's what you're thinking. The same applies to this. You can always tell me things can be better and you will never stop, until they are infinite. Can infinity even exist? Why attempt to grow corn to feed more people at all? We should just all eat primitive corn, as we'll never reach infinity corn nutritiousness. What is good about immortality? To be honest with you, I don't want to live forever. Of course I see the bright side in immortality as well as mortality, but my point is that you're just using your subjective opinions. Some people see mortality as an already perfect thing. I don't want to live forever, either. Surely an omnipotent god could let people choose when to die, rather than seemingly randomly(albeit somewhat genetics and environment based), killing some as infants, some at 80, some in the middle of important works. The economic and cultural act gained from extending the average lifespan from around 40 to nearly 80 has been enormous. A world without food? I disagree. Food is one of the many reasons I think god could exist. Something so appealing to our taste buds seems too good to be derived from luck. Surely you cannot claim that it's a coincidence that the foods we like best, that taste best, are the ones that have the best use, but are still fairly rare in regards to a hunter gatherer? Sugar and fat are our most loved foods, and they are extremely useful in a hunter gatherer lifestyle. As well, many children don't like vegetables on first taste. Not a coincidence. I said not necessary, not absent ;). Please do not strawman my points; I too enjoy food, but if people were not starving all the time, it would be extremely useful both empathetically and economically. Copy and paste: The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life. The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4 Venomai already responded to this, but I would have said much the same thing. I don't know if he mentioned that the earth varies in it's orbit over a million kilometres. So everything should be handed to us? In the perfect world, we wouldn't be able to feel the joys of our own personal triumphs and successes? How does that constitute as perfect world at all? You're the one who thinks that god is responsible for creating a perfect earth for us to live on, etc, etc, etc. I am simply stating that humanity's progress would have been much greater had these been done. As well, if they were, say, placed in the bible, there would be a faith basis for believeing in the bible, and it would stand as a proof of it's truths. And perhaps the separation between those who believe and those who don't believe is good? I know you're going to be asking for proof, but before you do, where is your proof that having non-believers in the world is a worse thing than a world full of all believers? My guess would be that it's a test, that it would be a contradiction to freewill, that the debate of his existence helps humanity achieve a better understanding of the world, or that god enjoys a world of skepticism. In your definition of a perfect world, this debate wouldn't exist. And honestly, I enjoy these types of debates and I think you do too or else we wouldn't be doing them. If you believe in Jesus or the Abrahamic god, you lose your right to use the free-will defence, because he violates it all the time, according to your holy text. as well, you have contradicted yourself. If things could always be infinitely better, than improving these things would not hurt this debate, because we can never have infinity goodness. A test? In my line of thinking, taking ants, killing many of them, and seeing what the rest do is sadistic. *Anticipates creator defence*--> It is illegal and immoral for parents to torture their children, and thus we can extend the same to god. If you believe in an afterlife of rewards and punishments, you forfeit that argument, because god is torturing and injuring those who do not believe in him for eternity after death. That would mean, in the interests of all humans, it would be good for god to give knowledge of his existence, because then less people would burn in hellfire. There is no logical connection between lack of evidence and free will- indeed, some would argue that to have free will in a certain decision, one must have knowledge. If I asked you to choose one of two boxes, and you had to pick one, and you had no knowledge of what is in the boxes, then you have no free will of any consequence, because your decision is based on chance. My proof that having non-believers in the world comes straight from Isiah, straight from Jesus' mouth, straight from Revelations. Ah, the concept of suffering always seems to pop up with these arguments. Think of a battery. There is a positive and a negative side and each has it's own role to make the battery have a use. Well, that's how I see life. It has it's ups and downs, and without either one there wouldn't be much of a point to it at all. So to make a point to life, god takes innocent children and humans, and floods them, infects them with diseases, and is responsible for both evil and good in the world. How do you describe hot as? The opposite of cold. How do you describe up as? The opposite of down. How do you describe good as? The opposite of bad. Without the other, the other one wouldn't even exist. Bad is necessary for good to exist. That is why we have suffering and bad things like that. A friend of mine made an interesting statement once. This argument is ridiculous, because why could god not simply show us varying levels of good? This would teach us goodness. Saying that the universe is completely random is a positive claim. Let's look at cause and effect shall we? The effect is evolution, life, the current world, and where we are today. You are telling me that there is no cause. That doesn't make logical sense. The existence of the universe doesn't conform to the concept of cause and effect. Bring up the big bang if you want, but that brings up a new question. What caused the big bang? You see, you made a ridiculously illogical claim as well that requires an unduly amount of evidence. Yet I'm the one making hypocritical arguments? You don't understand evolution. Natural selection is not random chance, and saying so is a strawman of my position. Haha. Let's apply your argument to your god. What caused him? You will say he caused himself or something. This is special pleading, and begs the question of why the universe cannot create itself. AS you can see, unless there is a steady state universe(which seems rather unlikely in the face of the evidence), one thing must have caused itself. There cannot be infinite regression. Therefore, we can take occams razor and choose the simplest answer that answers all the questions, thus slicing god out of the picture. If say, a miracle happened, then that may not be answerable, and we might need to reintroduce the god hypothesis. However, you and I know this is not forthcoming. So, how about you prove that there can be an effect without a cause, inside the boundaries of logic of course. I'm glad I'm not faced with that sort of challenge, since god claims to be outside of our logical grasp. :P Many atoms will radiate and decay instantaneously without cause. Most quantum effects are causeless- subatomic particles can pop in and out of existence spontanously. My argument was that god made reproduction - or more specifically: life - possible at all. My apologies for directing it towards evolution as a whole. You still have not told me WHY god would choose evolution over ex nihilo creation, as said in the bible and a myriad of religious texts. You claimed it, tell me why. You say he made it possible at all- why not go the easier, better, faster path of simply creating ex nihilo? Why did he instead choose evolution, which is slower, more brutal, requires more energy and effort, like you said?

You honestly can not tell me that if WW2 didn't happen we wouldn't be way over populated. Read my post. World war 2 killed less than 50 million, nothing on a geological scale. Deaths from starvation and malnutrition yearly has been estimated at around 5m, figuring conservatively. World war 2 lasted 6 years, so over that period, around 30m would have died from malnutrition(using today's figures) That is more than all of the USSR's military and civilian causalities, which made up over half of the total causalities. The Earth's carrying capacity is massive. There is lots of space, lots of food, lots of energy, lots of water. Over half of the food produced yearly worldwide is wasted. The 1st world uses the vast percentage of food, while having much less people. The 1st world uses more food than is healthy, while the 3rd world uses less than is healthy. There is a fundamental imbalance. I'll quote myself last post. Let's take space. Canada has 30 million people, in the second largest country in the world. The US is a bit smaller and has 300 million, and Russia is larger and has a bit less than the US, I believe. Canada could fit 50 million people easily, if you don't account for infrastructure. The only positive outcome from world war 2 in this discussion is nuclear power, which would have been produced anyways.

Looks like you're the one ignoring points. I'll ask again. Since the burden of proof is on you to show how the universe can be a much better place than it currently is, why not enlighten me? Whatever, I'll reply to your red herring. Hmm, let's see. Assuming that there is a god...humans could be faster, stronger, smarter. There could be plants growable that are both more nutritious, healthy, and easier to grow. Sickness and diseases, along with natural disasters could be gone, and in fact, humans could be immortal. Since there's a god, this could be alleviated with making humans not require food, or by making energy and space limitless. Earth could have twice or even a billion times the current carrying capacity. Perhaps a bisolar system of two revolving stars would be better, creating twice as much light energy to be used. Humans could have been given Maxwell's, Einstein's, Tesla's, equations, or god could reach down from the skies and hand us a quantum theory of gravity, along with plans for a FTL starship, probably based off an Alcubierre drive. If this god wanted humans to know of him or his teachings, he could implant the bible or whatever in everybody at birth, or perform miracles. He could tell us the meaning of life(if there is one), or alleviate poverty, war, or human suffering. He could eliminate discrimination and crime. Since this is an omnipotent god, he could always eliminate any foreseeable problems that could crop up with any of these. That's another thing I hate about the burden of proof. No actually, it's not the logical fallacy I have beef with. It's the poor appliance of the fallacy, and how it can easily be flung on either party for an advantage. Is it up to me to prove god can exist, or is it up to you to prove god can't exist? Let me reword that: Is it up to you to prove that things are just based on pure luck (a universe with the lack of god)? If you can't prove that there is some sort of contradiction or proof out there, showing that the idea of god is impossible, then that can also be easily denied. All that's required is a simple rewording and both will be positive claims. Let's apply this to the current difficulty. I make no positive claims. You definitly have made one, and are unable to back it up. You said that god influenced evolution. I provided evidence why a logical, sane god would not do such a thing, and humbly asked you to provide evidence for why you think so. You then start raging against a logical concept. You silly aunicornists and aleprechaunsatthebottomofthesea should stop poorly applying a logical concept! You make a positive claim about the lack of something! You are trying to make me prove a negative, and that is why you do not understand the fallacy. If I make a positive claim, I prove it. I back up evolution, cosmology, the big bang, and physical theories with proof. You accept my proof or others of evolution, then attempt to tack on another positive claim on it. I did not reply as it was a red herring, and not salient to the discussion. In either case, you are displaying hypocritical tendencies, criticizing me for what you have done. Now I have replied to it. I will not respond until you tell me why a god would choose evolution instead of ex nihilo creation, ex nihilo creation being smarter, faster, and better. How could a god create the fact that the fittest are more likely to reproduce? Did god create the fact that a two headed coin will always land heads, or the fact of the Fibonacci sequence? Would it make sense that a two headed coin will usually land tails? Of course not, and neither would saying that the fitter are not more likely to reproduce.

And what alternatives are there? Tell me how you think the perfect world or the perfect god would work. Let me guess, a world without suffering...? Am I correct? That is not the subject. That is a non sequitor and a red herring. An all powerful god, assuming he wanted a certain species, would have absolutely no problem simply poofing us or them out of nothingness. You need to show why he would choose a somewhat sadistic, wasteful, and time consuming process instead of simply creating ex nihilo. You need to explain why he took millions of years instead of 1 second to create us, if that is what he intended. You think that he played some role in evolution, but that makes no sense. Survival of the Fittest. That is not influenced by god, and makes perfect logical sense. How would a god "create" the concept of natural selection? Is the default that those who are unfit find it easier to find sex partners, survive, and procreate? I don't think so. You're assuming that there's no purpose of evolution at all. I wouldn't know the purpose being a human being and all, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Oh wait. Burden of proof. I forgot... every opinion we have must have scientific proofing backing it up. I guess I can't say my favorite color is black anymore. I don't understand why you think the burden of proof implies that absolutely nothing has a chance of existing, until it can be proven. The reason I don't take a liking to this is because when we're philosophizing about what is "proven" you will always have the ability to keep asking for an unduly amount of evidence. Doesn't work with metaphysics though. This is an argument. We are debating. If you want to make a point, you need to show why it could possibly be true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you said that you prefer black, then then that is not an extraordinary claim, and it is simply an opinion. However, if you said that black is the best colour for everyone, and is objectively the best, you had better back it up. Otherwise, I would simply say "No, blue is better in every way." I wouldn't have to back it up, as you didn't either. That is why you cannot make bald assertions without backing it up. However, that's okay. If you don't want to backup your arguments in the real world, with physical proof, then I simply call bs, I don't back it up, and we have ourselves a good ol stalemate. If you don't want to conform with logic and reasonable rules of argument, guess what? You don't have an argument. You have a bunch of people making bald statements. The purpose of a logical argument is to prove a statement for everyone. By simply asserting your points with no backing it up, others will do so as well, and you have no argument. The purpose of the logical argument is to convince someone, and you cannot do that without proving your statements true. You don't like being asked for evidence about your bald assertions because you don't have any. Let's try something new. A god does exist. I am god. I will not offer any proof, because we are dealing with metaphysics. Oh look, I won the argument, because you asking for proof is unduly hard on me, and you cannot offer any argument against it. EDIT: Stop ignoring many of my salient points, and please tell me why god would choose to work through evolution instead of working ex nihilo. Respond to my whole post.

You don't understand evolution. Couldn't one argue that the concept of evolution itself had some divine mind work behind it? But then you would be arguing that god is nearly mindless, very imprecise, very slow, very wasteful, and works through brutal and violent methods. If you argued that, you would be arguing that god is sadistic and illogical. If god wanted to create humans, and he is truly a god, he wouldn't have to work through evolution. If he did, then he chose probably the worst possible way. Evolution takes a very long time, and is brutally violent. You would be arguing that god took hundreds of millions of years to get his goal, and that he expended a serious amount of wasteful effort through it, by working this way. Then, there's the fact that evolution is still happening. Are we the end result of gods plan? Or is that still to come? Or did it occur a while ago? We're different than people a mere 2000 years ago, and people a mere 2000 years from now will be different than us. Perhaps god wants the humans that will evolve 10,000 years from now. Or perhaps we liked the humans 3000 years ago, and now he's disappointed that we've changed through evolution. Of course, then there's the matter that you'd have to prove it. Why did god not fill the earth with oxygen before or right after life began to grow, instead of waiting for around the Cambrian? If he had, sentient beings would likely have grown much faster. Why did he not prevent the dinosaurs from evolving? That would have yielded mammals much faster. Why did god not make piety a part of natural selection, by making it so that animals that displayed traits evocative of piety more likely to survive?

Pfft, the reason Ebola is less deadly is because it mutates way too fast, thus ending epidemics extremely fast, and it kills it's victims with lightning speed, reducing the chances of infecting others. Also, most of the strains aren't airborne. For population control people; There is a clear connection between birth rate and standard of living. They are inversely proportional. As standard of life, life expectancy rate, and other factors increase, birth rate drops like a stone. This is because when you expect your child to grow to adulthood, you don't feel the need to have ten, just so you can have two that survive. Look at any 1st world country. Our birth rate is often lower than the death rate. More and more people choose to only have 2, 1, or zero children. Meanwhile, the reverse is true in countries with zero infrastructure, infested with malaria and other diseases, and with crappy standards of living. Look at the consumption per person in 1st world countries where virulent diseases are rare. It's very very high, and we support relatively few people. Meanwhile, the consumption per person in Africa is nearly nothing. The earth currently produces 2,264 million metric tons of cereals, which is the staple food of the world. If each person consumes 2,000 calories per day, 2,264 million metric tons of cereal will support a little bit over 10 billion people. This is JUST cereals. If we consider energy; nuclear fission should be able to support our needs for quite some time in the future. There is much more uranium in the earth than we can use in the foreseeable future. If we ever get nuclear fusion figured out, we have nearly infinite energy from the seas. If you want to consider that, with the gain of many billions from the lack of need to treat the symptoms of aids(if we cure it), then that money could theoretically be pumped into nuclear fusion research. I foresee arable land being less of a problem in the future; hydroponics are already a valid solution, and getting into that more can only help. Dr. Malthus was wrong in 1798. We've only improved our abilities to produce food, energy, water, and other resources since then. We have not had a Malthusian Catastrophe, as he predicted.

Fixed, thanks. Fixed, thanks. Yes, please post any coding mistakes here as well. (As Blue said, please state where they came from and what they are :P )

Sure, I don't see why not. Even if a planet that could support life was very rare, then we would be an example of the small fraction of planets that supports life. In this case, you shouldn't be surprised that we're in such an advantageous point in the universe. This is called the Anthropic Principle. As Penrose put it : Simply because we are here to observe it, these conditions must be right for life. If the conditions on earth were NOT right for life, we wouldn't be here to observe it. If the universe was not right for life, no one would be there to observe it. For a species to say "Why is the universe right for life?" it is necessary that the universe that they are in is right for life. If it wasn't, then they wouldn't be there to observe it.