stonewall337

Actually, according to the big bang big crunch theory, it is very feasible that these events are repeatable. I will admit, people will think you are an idiot if you said that. But people would also call you an idiot if you said God just decided to put a 747 in the middle of a junkyard too. People believe that because evolution has a very large amount of supporting facts behind it. You're right, an organism evolving over millions of years is science. And doesn't a frog turning into a prince seem much more like a bible story than something out of a science textbook? There is loads of feasible proof for evolution, just think about what Darwin said for about a minute. Natural selection is the process by which heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive and successfully reproduce become more common in a population over successive generations. This makes perfect sense, for example, lets take a species of insects. These insects can be white, or black. They live in an environment where the majority of their surroundings are black. And we have a species of bats that prey on these insects. Which insects will survive longer, the ones that look like white specs on a black background, or the ones that blend in? And the ones that survive longer will have more chances to reproduce, and therefore it will be more likely that the gene for a black exoskeleton will be passed on. Eventually almost all of these insects will be black. The same mechanism can be applied for every gene, and as time goes on life will evolve and change. Another piece of evidence for evolution is that the genetic coding mechanism for human DNA is the same as the genetic coding mechanism for plant DNA, or fungal DNA. There is far, far more evidence for evolution than there is for the Bible. In fact, I would like for you to present some evidence supporting the Bible, as I have not seen much. I have never heard this, or read this in the bible before. I'm going to assume this is you making up an explanation that God didn't give you. I guess it makes a little sense, the problem is the light of some stars have only been seen by us rather recently, so I guess God only made the light from some of the stars. Survival of the fittest is not macro evolution. Evolution is the change of a creature from one species into another. They are similar, yet highly different. Also, evolution hasn't yet been proven, it is thus even know rightly called "the Theory of Evolution." Theories may have scientific backing, yet they can not be proven. As well, I have yet to hear or see of any transition fossil. There should be many, shouldn't there? I will ask you, where are they all? Without that one key fact, the whole premise or macro evolution, even by Darwin's own admission, falls apart. And yes, I prefer to believe that God chose to create the world in 6 days, instead of instantly. Why can not God have as great a pleasure in creation as a human does? I prefer to believe God created everything, than to believe that there was nothing, that nothing turned into alot of matter, that matter was greatly compressed, that matter exploded, and here we all are. In other words, rock+rain=human.

Just because you say no at the end of your sentences, does NOT make it so. So when trying to insult my intelligence do not assume I did not read your post. I read it, and a simple no does not justify a change in the religious story. When it was first written, I am confident they discussed the symbolic importance assuming it was meant to be taken metaphorically. ---- Too many people are reading the topic title, then replying. It's gone on too many pages to construct a continous arguement, and those that are still attempting to argue are ignoring my points and not really reading. One minded views with no room to listen to others. I am attempting to take in advice and new points I was unaware of, but anything I digest and throw back is discarded. I'm out of this heated topic, I don't have the energy. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, you really do come across as either not reading or not understanding my posts. I had a quick read through your posts here and most seem to have already been disputed, or lead to nowhere. They were questions I answered in hopes that you would answer them, which you haven't elaborated on. Why else would fundamentalism be so widespread? I would have thought it would have been squashed during the crusades like everything else the church disagreed with. What is symbolic about jesus saying all prayers will be answered, but apparently only some of them are? What is symbolic about the world being created in 7 days in relation to evolution. I could ask those questions to 50 different Christians and get 50 different answers. You can take pretty much anything from it using your imagination. Why not just invent your own religion entirely? You can spout elitist symbolic theories, but they aren't going to be consistent with the next Christian, and occam's razor is always going to be better. By occam's razor, do you mean "when you have two competing theories that have the same solution, the simpler one is the better." As that is not really what occam's razor is about. It is really talking about how "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" In other words, as both of these theories are equal in scientific merit, since both are theories, the one which should be accepted is the one which demands the fewer assumptions. Since it is far easier to assume that a supernatural being whom we have no proof of created everything, rather than that matter at one time came into existence, compacted, exploded, and produced everything, and since then never comes into existence anymore, then I believe that Occam's Razor supports the Genesis account. So your saying you don't support scientific reasoning because something came from nothing. Where did god come from? The whole genesis story, all the tales about god and religion in various scriptures definitely make quite a few assumptions. EDIT: What's the difference? Nothing, other than more time. There is a huge difference between micro and macro. A big dog changing into a little dog yes, but it is still a DOG. Not a horse. There is no evidence of macro, whilst there is of micro. You used a straw man. That is like saying there is no difference between a orange and a apple but taste. Pretty sure that's not a straw man argument. I meant the difference in changes. Either way, I don't think anyone thinks dogs evolved into horses so that's irrelevant. What you can take is what is considered the common ancestor and trace that. Lots of micro changes add up to macro. No, they don't. You see, whilst micro can be proven, macro can not. Never has a dog changed into a horse, even with alot of time. That is why we have so many dog breeds, but not half dogs-half horses. Before I debate more on this argument, look at the difference between the two. Look them up. You will see how different they are. As well, no origin theory can have more "proof". It all comes down to faith, even the Big Bang. However, other parts of the Bible are far more verifiable than any other religious book, not to mention the Bible has never been disproven, and that also stands for it. And for theories, the reason they are theories is they don't have solid proof. If they did, they would be laws.

Just because you say no at the end of your sentences, does NOT make it so. So when trying to insult my intelligence do not assume I did not read your post. I read it, and a simple no does not justify a change in the religious story. When it was first written, I am confident they discussed the symbolic importance assuming it was meant to be taken metaphorically. ---- Too many people are reading the topic title, then replying. It's gone on too many pages to construct a continous arguement, and those that are still attempting to argue are ignoring my points and not really reading. One minded views with no room to listen to others. I am attempting to take in advice and new points I was unaware of, but anything I digest and throw back is discarded. I'm out of this heated topic, I don't have the energy. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, you really do come across as either not reading or not understanding my posts. I had a quick read through your posts here and most seem to have already been disputed, or lead to nowhere. They were questions I answered in hopes that you would answer them, which you haven't elaborated on. Why else would fundamentalism be so widespread? I would have thought it would have been squashed during the crusades like everything else the church disagreed with. What is symbolic about jesus saying all prayers will be answered, but apparently only some of them are? What is symbolic about the world being created in 7 days in relation to evolution. I could ask those questions to 50 different Christians and get 50 different answers. You can take pretty much anything from it using your imagination. Why not just invent your own religion entirely? You can spout elitist symbolic theories, but they aren't going to be consistent with the next Christian, and occam's razor is always going to be better. By occam's razor, do you mean "when you have two competing theories that have the same solution, the simpler one is the better." As that is not really what occam's razor is about. It is really talking about how "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" In other words, as both of these theories are equal in scientific merit, since both are theories, the one which should be accepted is the one which demands the fewer assumptions. Since it is far easier to assume that a supernatural being whom we have no proof of created everything, rather than that matter at one time came into existence, compacted, exploded, and produced everything, and since then never comes into existence anymore, then I believe that Occam's Razor supports the Genesis account. So your saying you don't support scientific reasoning because something came from nothing. Where did god come from? The whole genesis story, all the tales about god and religion in various scriptures definitely make quite a few assumptions. EDIT: What's the difference? Nothing, other than more time. There is a huge difference between micro and macro. A big dog changing into a little dog yes, but it is still a DOG. Not a horse. There is no evidence of macro, whilst there is of micro. You used a straw man. That is like saying there is no difference between a orange and a apple but taste. As well skull, even Darwin stated that his whole theory of natural selection would collapse if missing links were not found. You would think there should be a plethora, yet there are not. As well, his whole theory with the birds and their various size beaks proved micro, not macro evolution. As well there are a number of problems with Carbon dating, such as the assumptions it makes, such as there having always been the same amount of gasses in the atmosphere, which is the same as me seeing a candle in a room, observing the rate of burn, and stating that the candle had a starting height of 8 inches. I don't know how long it was burning, nor that the rate was the same.

What? How the hell is there more evidence for the biblical explanation. How is there any more evidence for that than any other religion's origin stories? You want evolution, here's evolution. We can breed animals to have certain characteristics. That's why there are so many dog types, why corn is so big, stuff like that. That's not natural evolution, but it's evolution nonetheless. That is micro evolution. You can change a big dog into a little dog, but not a dog into a horse. You can breed short corn to grow taller, or yield more harvest, yet you cannot breed a cherry tree to yield watermelons. You are using a straw man. You are claiming that because micro evolution, which is scientific and provable occurs, that of course, macro evolution, which is neither observable, nor repeatable is of course also true. That is not a logical correlation, and your argument cannot hold water.

Just because you say no at the end of your sentences, does NOT make it so. So when trying to insult my intelligence do not assume I did not read your post. I read it, and a simple no does not justify a change in the religious story. When it was first written, I am confident they discussed the symbolic importance assuming it was meant to be taken metaphorically. ---- Too many people are reading the topic title, then replying. It's gone on too many pages to construct a continous arguement, and those that are still attempting to argue are ignoring my points and not really reading. One minded views with no room to listen to others. I am attempting to take in advice and new points I was unaware of, but anything I digest and throw back is discarded. I'm out of this heated topic, I don't have the energy. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, you really do come across as either not reading or not understanding my posts. I had a quick read through your posts here and most seem to have already been disputed, or lead to nowhere. They were questions I answered in hopes that you would answer them, which you haven't elaborated on. Why else would fundamentalism be so widespread? I would have thought it would have been squashed during the crusades like everything else the church disagreed with. What is symbolic about jesus saying all prayers will be answered, but apparently only some of them are? What is symbolic about the world being created in 7 days in relation to evolution. I could ask those questions to 50 different Christians and get 50 different answers. You can take pretty much anything from it using your imagination. Why not just invent your own religion entirely? You can spout elitist symbolic theories, but they aren't going to be consistent with the next Christian, and occam's razor is always going to be better. By occam's razor, do you mean "when you have two competing theories that have the same solution, the simpler one is the better." As that is not really what occam's razor is about. It is really talking about how "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" In other words, as both of these theories are equal in scientific merit, since both are theories, the one which should be accepted is the one which demands the fewer assumptions. Since it is far easier to assume that a supernatural being whom we have no proof of created everything, rather than that matter at one time came into existence, compacted, exploded, and produced everything, and since then never comes into existence anymore, then I believe that Occam's Razor supports the Genesis account.

Obviously, the same place the matter which compressed, then exploded came from. There is no scientific answer, as either event is neither repeatable, (well, I guess in theory they are) nor observable. People think you are an idiot if you claim that a tornado through a junkyard created a 747 ready to fly, yet they believe that given enough time, far more, and far more advanced creatures can just "become". BTW: If a frog turns into a prince right away, that is a fairy tale. If a frog turns into a prince over millions of years, that is science. Neither can be proven, both are based on faith. As the Bible has never been disproven, and I see no feasible proof for evolution/the big bang, I will believe that there is a God. Especially when one looks at the plethora of hoaxes which litter the evolution side of origins, such as the piltdown man, Lucy, the "human gills" and many others. Therfore, seeing as there is more evidence for the Biblical side, I choose to believe the Biblical explanation. In addition , to explain the whole starlight from millions of lightyears away, if the earth is young. Well, God obviously didn't create Adam and Eve as newborns, nor were all the plants or animals anything other than fully grown. The light from the sun would have already been created reaching earth, as would the light of the stars. In essence, the light was created, not just the source of the light.

Scimmy. Take it from people who have combat stats above 57...

OT: thanks for coming to party last night jimi. Because he is lying/wants sympathy/ bought to use at higher def.

I got one at TDS, and let it go. The few other people there laughed.

You admit you share accounts, but you want help. No. Glad you got hacked, as you cheat.

RS and Wow are intrinsically different, outside of the MMORPG genre. Lets not bring it into any RS related discussion, as it doesn't matter what WoW does. Well thought out idea, but impractical.

Status. Most of them I have met are either rude, or useless. There are some good p mods, such as ALG from what I have seen, but mostly it appears to be a status symbol.

You also get a wake behind a boat. SAAAAIIIIIILLLLLIIINNNNNNGGGGG

Summoning is easy to get.

The statement in the first article that "In the era of 'keeping up with the Jonese' players can't make as much money as PK'ers/(or trickers)." Is incorrect. I could easily make 1m an hour camping mages/abbies or doing sara/arma GWD. Those with 91 rcing, or with the ability to mine rune can as well, as can other skills.

Thanks to those who came. Trimmed attack cape at 133 combat. Attack cape was hawt untrimmed, but ehh, +4 prayer and the trim is nice too.

Ye, but they make more gp than you because you don't have any good moneymaking skills, like 85 mining. WC is just bad cash to begin with. But I agree with the skull idea.

It is nothing. If they were really concerned about keeping it secret, they either would have said nothing, or else edited the comment. This is simply to create hype.

Plus it is around 200k, while a DDS is like 50k.

6 more to go, keep it up! BTW: IRL my construction level is 99. I've built over 100 solid paneled oak doors.

I think that my untrimmed attack cape is pretty damn hot, because I am 133 combat. I thought about going for 134 before trimming with HP, through summoning, prayer, and 1 more defense level, but decided against it. However, untrimmed HP at high combat levels is impressive. ( Most lower levels, like really low, either have high range/mage, or SW/PC'ed it.) Of course, untrimmed slayer is cool, as it must basically be planned for to get. Untrimmed prayer and RC look very nice, as does farming. Untrimmed Str/cooking/fletching of course are the worst.

Update quality has improved quite a bit in recent months. Jagex is doing a really good job of paying attention to player feedback--hence the string of high-level updates and storyline-continuation quests in lieu of a new minigame every other month. Even if there were a couple misses (Woodcutting rebalance, ugh, that was the epitome of lameness), for the most part I'm happy with how things are being handled. It is hardly "Utterly massive." It is, in fact, rather small even compared to some single player RPG games.

"Decision to cancel MechScape costs Jagex "tens of millions" That is the title of the article from http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/decision-to-cancel-mechscape-costs-jagex-tens-of-millions. If you are ragging on those who said it was cancelled, please shut up. That is what the article said, and although it still may be coming out, what they had WAS FRIKKEN CANCELED.

Jagex: Giving MGM Studios a run for their money since 2009! I got it, hint at a new skill- MOVIE MAKING! I also wonder, why didn't paul turn into a zombie? He must be the Will Smith of Jagex Castle. :D

I think they might have had issues with people not getting the joke - and seriously thinking all they did was sleep and snog :mellow: Wait, isn't that all you do? Oh, and you watch anime. I agree with both of MHL's posts. Maybe TIF crewbies need to make a vid like this.