Wisp

And a massively complex engine system and navigation system. Not to mention the reactor.

I have 14 around earth alone. Life support isn't gonna cost like 500 billion dollars.

Wait, ross, how does one of your battleships cost only 150b each? And how do you have the facilities to build 4 1/4 battleships a year?

You are apparently arguing against the scientific method. I've seen a few news articles of transition fossils, but I'm not going to go look for them. Fossils of early humans, for example, are very rare, so finding a "transition" fossil wouldn't exactly be a common thing. As for macro/micro evolution, I'll draw a picture to illustrate my point. At each stage (in real life, this would be thousands of years)a small change, and the small changes lead to a bigger change at the end. Even though they started at the same thing, small changes over time lead them to something different. EDIT: Edited my post to only quote the post I was directly responding to.

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. Way to ignore half my post. I'm not saying dogs evolved into horses. How are you talking about proof when your proof is that some book said god chucked some animals onto the planet after making them out of clay. Than any other religious book? Prove it. The difference between the big bang theory and the bible is that one takes evidence, looks at everything possible, and then makes the most logical assumption from that. The bible is someone writing words on paper. The fact it has never been disproven is because it can't be disproven, and means nothing. I can say that the whole world is actually in my head. Disprove it.

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. Either way, you still haven't answered, how does a biblical explanation have more proof than: 1: Any other religious origin story 2: Scientific Theories.

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.

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.

Well, I think I decided. I'm just gonna download the game, play single player, and wait a few months to see if they eventually add dedicated servers. If they do, I'll buy it.

I suggest going somewhere where there's stuff to do, but you can still talk to her. Life if you go the park with no plans on what to actually do it'll probably just end up being awkward. Even though it's not something that can always happen, I would recommend something like a fair. There's a lot of stuff to do, and it's not like a movie where you can't talk.

"Hey, I'm doing doing X this friday, you want to come?"

Attraction is all about elitism. In the wild the female doesn't choose the male that lost the battle, and in our society the girl doesn't choose the guy that is less appealing overall (aesthetics/intelligence/mentality). However most people don't see it as being perfect, just better than the next guy. I'm not talking about attraction. I'm talking about the PUA websites and articles. Just read the example of the urban dictionary thing "I was throwing neg after neg at the 10 who was giving me crazy kino" or whatever.

How exactly do you plan on powering that?

You're forgetting how freaking HUGE the galaxy is. Remember, Galaxy =/= Solar System. Comparing our solar system to the Milky Way is akin to comparing a speck of sand to a beach. It makes perfect sense to me that it'd take a long [wagon] time for us to make a half-rotation that slowly. :-s I'm not sure what you're getting at. We get on the right side of the sun every year, so it happens every year. If you're going to take into account the 'wobble' of the solar system instead of being generally the same side, 2012 will be about 6 degrees off the centre region. It's not unusual. Besides, the precise location of the centre of our galaxy is unknown because it's flooded with light. Yes, we get on the right side of the sun every year. However, this is FAR from revolving around the galaxy in a year. That process takes about, if I remember, 50,000 years. This makes this a very rare occurrence. Also, one of the things supposed about this mark is that it will have an effect on our planet's crust similar to the moon and sun's effect on the oceans. I'll leave you to think over that one. Not revolving around the galaxy, I don't know where that came from. Just logically the sun will come between us and the center once a year. Doesn't matter if the center is 25,000 light years away or not.

To be honest, all these PUA things really annoy me. I mean, I'm not some feminist who will rant about how men are objectifying women, and all that, but all this PUA stuff just seems really smug. The fact that all the articles or websites all use dozens of abbreviations just seems really... elitist or something.

The middle could be held up internally.

Takes more skill though.

One final thing, you mentioned fusion was your main power source. Currently, there is only one country that uses fusion as their power source, ignoring hex or mather, I forget which, and that's me. And that was only just completed research wise, after working on it since july 27th real life. So it'll take you a while to get fusion as a viable energy source. And I'll look through the maps you gave me, and put one or two onto the front post.

Same, actually.

Well, the ak-47 was actually a good gun. But not the best, but close to it in terms of assault rifles.

It kinda baffles me why rpg's and ak-47's are the top of their category.

That would totally explain why the only weapons they used were pretty much spears and clubs. Oh, and why the entire empire was defeated by about 170 guys. Sickness and hospitality was the reasons, the Spaniards came and the Incas and the others welcomed them, thy traded their goods to them as well as work labour, but when they started getting sick the Spaniards sloughtered them. Sickness was a major factor. It wasn't so much hospitality, rather than the inca empire thinking the 168 dudes wouldn't be stupid enough to attack an army of tens of thousands of people. And after that, the incas weren't hospitable, obviously. The spaniards just had much better technology. Swords, armor, and horses.

It's 1 year on both end, one for slowing down and speeding up. Otherwise all the people would die on the ship. They don't just sit their during that time, they go at extremely high speeds. Just not the maximum speeds.

That would totally explain why the only weapons they used were pretty much spears and clubs. Oh, and why the entire empire was defeated by about 170 guys.

Mather, considering you wanted to be the incas, the iron and copper techs aren't 1000 BC techs, you barely had copper tools in the 14-1600s CE