Darkling

Yes, the Radeon 9200 is a Fantastic card, that's the one that I'm using to play, No more CTD's!!

quote:Originally posted by Andergum: You may not have, but the endless wars around the middle east and other places are testament to the fact that many others do. It's human nature to want to be right and some will always resort to violence if you don't agree with them. Be it a husband that beats on his wife for not agreeing with his "Authority" or a Dictator like Saddam who brutalized his own people. It's for reasons like this that we need more of God in our lives, but instead of some simply "shaking the dust off thier feet and moving on" as it says to do in the Bible when someone doesn't agree with your views too many resort to violence.

quote:Originally posted by Andergum: Searching for the answer makes way more sense than pretending you know and then faulting others for not believing as you do.I've never faulted others for not believing as I do, the problem that I have is when they try to fault me for not believing as they do.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Were you guys on a LAN or Internet? Did you guys experience any problems not already listed in the VCF? If so, please open a trouble ticket in the tech support section. And yes, it IS better than RC7. Its like, lemme think.....like the retail version of the game, is to the RC7 patch. Just wait. We were on Internet. The only problem that I experienced was when I first tried to join, it kicked me off. I looked on my other computer and realized that there were 2 people playing as Galcom, 1 Vesperian and 1 Gammulan. So I thought that maybe it had to do with the Game Balance being on? Wasn't sure, but I tried going in as Gammulan Instead and I was able to Join. Any chance of you adding some sort of Game Saving feature, similar to Privateer?

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Evolution is not the contestable hotbed debate that some religious organizations claim it is. Hate to burst your bubble, but about half the population doesn't believe in Evolution.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: quote:Originally posted by Darkling: quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: The fossil evidence shows us plainly that macroevolution takes place, it is HOW it takes place that is the question. Although we are getting closer to answering that question, Genetics is helping pin it down. But how was life created? Evolution doesn't care.... Though the fossil record may SEEM to support evolution, genetic evidence actually goes the other way. As an example, after the Genome Mapping project, they came up with a "code" of sorts of what comprises Human DNA, what's interesting is that, using the specified chemicals that make up DNA, they calculated that there are actually over a Billion Billion possible combinations. That is a 10 with 20 zero's. Out of all those combinations, we "Just Happen" to have the ONE perfect combination, you see, almost any other combination would have been disastrous for us and would either not have worked out or left us susceptible to disease and infertility. So I am supposed to believe that out of a chance of one in a Billion Billion, we just got lucky? Any mathematician will tell you that anything over a Million Million is almost impossible to EVER occur and anything over a Billion Million is absolutely certain to NEVER happen. Just to illustrate how far fetched this idea is, it is about the same probability of every person in the world flipping a coin all at the same time and every single one of them getting heads. I don't care if everyone in the world did this every minute of the day for 2 lifetimes, it will just NEVER happen, the odds are so far stacked against it, that it is just plain impossible. It's the same with Macro Evolution. The odds of a change in DNA occuring, that "somehow" matches up to be JUST the perfect balace to create a whole new species is just absurd. I get a cut on my finger and white blood cells rush to the area and target and destroy any invading bacteria, my blood cells were designed to harden at the presence of the right combination of Oxygen and Nitrogen, to protect my skin as it heals. T-cells make enzymatic replications of the protien of any bacteria in the area and transmit throughout my nervouse system the protein signature of the invader so it is destroyed on sight by any white blood cells. I am supposed to believe that all this happened by accident? That my body and all it's incredible designs is somehow a cosmic mistake? I refuse to believe that. You may believe in luck, but I don't. For you to sit there reading this screen with eyes that rival Supercomputers in computing power, refraction, light composition, and imaging connected to a brain that has Random Access Memory that could only be measured in the Billions of Terrabytes and say that you are a mistake, go ahead, I feel for you buddy, the evidence is all around you of God's creations, but if you want to keep denying him Go ahead, he gave you that free will of yours. Say what you want. Build your house of cards, in then end if I'm wrong, no big deal, but if you are wrong well, you'll have some explaining to do. Ahh yes, the statistically impossible argument. I have seen this one as well, and it is just as silly as the others that I have seen. Again, straight out of the creationist Strawman handbook. We'll take this one itsy bitsy step at a time. And you are going back to abiogenesis again, BAD creationist, BAD.... I told you not to try and change the subject. But I'll play.... My comments will be in italics and what I feel is important within it, will be in bold. From this website quote: Every so often, someone comes up with the statement "the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible". Often they cite an impressive looking calculation from the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, or trot out something called "Borel's Law" to prove that life is statistically impossible. These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors. 1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all. 2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life. 3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials. 4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. 5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences. I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way. A primordial protoplasmic globule So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect. Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random. Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms [2, 5, 10, 15, 28]. An illustration comparing a hypothetical protobiont and a modern bacteria is given below. go to the site for the pictures The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group [7, 17], or the self replicating hexanucleotide [10], or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself [12]. Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle [3, 5, 15, 26, 28]. An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator [24]. These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides (see below) it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed. These two models are not mutually exclusive. The Ghadiri peptide can mutate and form catalytic cycles [9]. No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis. I will spell this out, just in case you decide NOT to go the website. Creationist view of Abiogenesis. Simple Chemicals-------------Bacteria BOOM just like that, NOT quite L theory of Abiogenesis Simple Chemicals-----Polymers-----replicating polymers-----hypercycle------Protobiant-----Bacteria Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap [4, 10, 15, 28]. Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! [8] Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations". The myth of the "life sequence" Another claim often heard is that there is a "life sequence" of 400 proteins, and that the amino acid sequences of these proteins cannot be changed, for organisms to be alive. This, however, is nonsense. The 400 protein claim seems to come from the protein coding genome of Mycobacterium genetalium, which has the smallest genome currently known of any modern organism [20]. However, inspection of the genome suggests that this could be reduced further to a minimal gene set of 256 proteins [20]. Note again that this is a modern organism. The first protobiont/progenote would have been smaller still [4], and preceded by even simpler chemical systems [3, 10, 11, 15]. As to the claim that the sequences of proteins cannot be changed, again this is nonsense. There are in most proteins regions where almost any amino acid can be substituted, and other regions where conservative substitutions (where charged amino acids can be swapped with other charged amino acids, neutral for other neutral amino acids and hydrophobic amino acids for other hydrophobic amino acids) can be made. Some functionally equivalent molecules can have between 30 - 50% of their amino acids different. In fact it is possible to substitute structurally non-identical bacterial proteins for yeast proteins, and worm proteins for human proteins, and the organisms live quite happily. The "life sequence" is a myth. Coin tossing for beginners and macromolecular assembly So let's play the creationist game and look at forming a peptide by random addition of amino acids. This certainly is not the way peptides formed on the early Earth, but it will be instructive. I will use as an example the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group mentioned above [7]. I could use other examples, such as the hexanucleotide self-replicator [10], the SunY self-replicator [24] or the RNA polymerase described by the Eckland group [12], but for historical continuity with creationist claims a small peptide is ideal. This peptide is 32 amino acids long with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE and is an enzyme, a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits. It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. The fact that it is a self replicator is an added irony. The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low. However, there is another side to these probability estimates, and it hinges on the fact that most of us don't have a feeling for statistics. When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone before the said event turns up, but this is wrong. Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you get 4 heads in a row? Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2)4 or 1 chance in 16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 1040) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. But there is more. 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 is still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely; it's hard to cope with this number. Even with the argument above (you could get it on your very first trial) most people would say "surely it would still take more time than the Earth existed to make this replicator by random methods". Not really; in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates [2,15]. Let's go back to our example with the coins. Say it takes a minute to toss the coins 4 times; to generate HHHH would take on average 8 minutes. Now get 16 friends, each with a coin, to all flip the coin simultaneously 4 times; the average time to generate HHHH is now 1 minute. Now try to flip 6 heads in a row; this has a probability of (1/2)6 or 1 in 64. This would take half an hour on average, but go out and recruit 64 people, and you can flip it in a minute. If you want to flip a sequence with a chance of 1 in a billion, just recruit the population of China to flip coins for you, you will have that sequence in no time flat. So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly. Okay, you are looking at that number again, 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040, that's a big number, and although a billion starting molecules is a lot of molecules, could we ever get enough molecules to randomly assemble our first replicator in under half a billion years? Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 1024 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 1027 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks [14,16]. So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 1024 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 1050 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 1031) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial). Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence [14,16]. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort). Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. I leave this as an exercise for the reader, but the general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides. Search spaces, or how many needles in the haystack? I've shown that generating a given small enzyme is not as mind-bogglingly difficult as creationists (and Fred Hoyle) suggest. Another misunderstanding is that most people feel that the number of enzymes/ribozymes, let alone the ribozymal RNA polymerases or any form of self-replicator, represent a very unlikely configuration and that the chance of a single enzyme/ribozyme forming, let alone a number of them, from random addition of amino acids/nucleotides is very small. However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10112 sequences are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 1024 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10-7 M [23], then there are roughly 1 x 1049 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 1034) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 1020 sequences is an RNA polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl transferases (about 1 in every 1015 sequences), and ribozymal nucleotide synthesis [1, 6, 13]. Similarly, of the 1 x 10130 possible 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 1061 represent cytochrome C alone! [29] There's lots of functional enyzmes in the peptide/nucleotide search space, so it would seem likely that a functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth's prebiotic soup. So, even with more realistic (if somewhat mind beggaring) figures, random assemblage of amino acids into "life-supporting" systems (whether you go for protein enzyme based hypercycles [10], RNA world systems [18], or RNA ribozyme-protein enzyme coevolution [11, 25]) would seem to be entirely feasible, even with pessimistic figures for the original monomer concentrations [23] and synthesis times. Conclusions The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies. At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown. However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping. I thought you studied biology, ever taken a class in biochemistry? You should. Put down the creationist handbook against evolution, because it is WRONG. But we can keep going if you like. NEXT....... Oh and there are LOTS of other examples of the fallacie of this argument, but that would make a post at least 5 pages long, and I'm just not into that here. Oh, and your last point, I will have some explaining to do if I'm wrong? Well, guess what, I don't happen to believe that God is some omnipotent all powerful creature with delusions of grandeur and will get angry with me if I don't kiss his feet and pray to him every day. I believe that if I use the brains that he gave me and educate myself to a point where I figure out how it all started and how it all happened, that he will be rather pleased that I went and used those brains to come to my own conclusions. I live, and I use those gifts that I have to educate myself and use what I have been born with, that is enough. You know, I've got to tell you, when you create these HUMUNGOUSE posts, it's too difficult to go over it all, just make your point and be done with it. Geez.

quote:Originally posted by Andergum: It's amazing to me that people will have so much problem accepting that which is so plainly obvious, yet, so readily believe in the non-explanation, that everything just appeared from nothing.OK, isn't that what the Big Bang Theory says? So what's the difference? I believe that God created the Universe out of nothing. You believe that the Universe Created itself out of nothing. Which sounds dumber to you?

quote:Originally posted by Darkreaver1980: The Ship wasnt on autopilot and the enemyfighters attacked me under 6km and not one PTA Gun from the 10 fired at em. I dont mean the Maingun, i mean the little 10 Guns on my ship = PTA Was the PTA system on? You turn it on with CTRL+P

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: quote:Originally posted by Darkling: Can an Ant understand how an automobile works? God has no beginning and not end, we don't understand this just as the and will never understand the automobile. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Prove it...... You first... Man evolved from Apes .. PROVE IT.. LOL

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: (science)... It's NOT religion.... I never said that Science was religion, what I said is that when you make asumptions upon assumptions about evolution without the facts to back them up, then it almost becomes LIKE a religion to the beleiver. So I am the "Religious" Zealot, and you are the "Evolutionist" Zelot. LOL Look you said it yourself, evolution is the "Best explaination of what happened" and so to you it's a fact. You beleive even though there's no conclusive proof. Just as there's no conclusive proof that there is a God and that God is the one who made everything, pretty much from nothing. So If I were to say to you, no God is the Best explaination of how we came to be, then without proof, you would say that I am wrong and you and other "Evolutionist" are right. Again, neither one of us knows FOR SURE. But that doesn't stop you from thinking that I am silly for believing what I do and vice versa.

quote:Originally posted by Darkreaver1980: Megatron with 10 Turrets, and not one does fire...If you look at the Manual Apendix you will see that the Megaron's Main gun's Maximum Range is 27.5, so if your target is further away than that, your guns will not fire. Also if it is on Autopilot, you may want to command your ship to attack your nearest enemy.

quote:Originally posted by Darkreaver1980: How do i see if my mining drones are full? Go to Tactical then click on Loadout, then click on SC for Shuttle Craft, then click on Drone. On your right you will see the planet that it is deployed on plus the percentage full that it is.

BTW, I'm am laughing every time that I post something on here.. I can't believe that you allow yourself to get SO worked up.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Where did God come from? Can an Ant understand how an automobile works? God has no beginning and not end, we don't understand this just as the and will never understand the automobile. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: Yeah, mp needs some work, but trust me when I say this, by the end of the 1.00.02 patch, mp will probably be the biggest thing we'll be playing. Just wait. Hell, I'm going to be setting up servers - which I'm paying for. Now, would I do that if I wasn't confident? Well if it's even better than RC7, I can't wait. I was on last night with about 5 or 6 guys for a while and it was great, if it wasn't for my wife begging me to go to bed, I would have been on all night!

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: The fossil evidence shows us plainly that macroevolution takes place, it is HOW it takes place that is the question. Although we are getting closer to answering that question, Genetics is helping pin it down. But how was life created? Evolution doesn't care.... Though the fossil record may SEEM to support evolution, genetic evidence actually goes the other way. As an example, after the Genome Mapping project, they came up with a "code" of sorts of what comprises Human DNA, what's interesting is that, using the specified chemicals that make up DNA, they calculated that there are actually over a Billion Billion possible combinations. That is a 10 with 20 zero's. Out of all those combinations, we "Just Happen" to have the ONE perfect combination, you see, almost any other combination would have been disastrous for us and would either not have worked out or left us susceptible to disease and infertility. So I am supposed to believe that out of a chance of one in a Billion Billion, we just got lucky? Any mathematician will tell you that anything over a Million Million is almost impossible to EVER occur and anything over a Billion Million is absolutely certain to NEVER happen. Just to illustrate how far fetched this idea is, it is about the same probability of every person in the world flipping a coin all at the same time and every single one of them getting heads. I don't care if everyone in the world did this every minute of the day for 2 lifetimes, it will just NEVER happen, the odds are so far stacked against it, that it is just plain impossible. It's the same with Macro Evolution. The odds of a change in DNA occuring, that "somehow" matches up to be JUST the perfect balace to create a whole new species is just absurd. I get a cut on my finger and white blood cells rush to the area and target and destroy any invading bacteria, my blood cells were designed to harden at the presence of the right combination of Oxygen and Nitrogen, to protect my skin as it heals. T-cells make enzymatic replications of the protien of any bacteria in the area and transmit throughout my nervouse system the protein signature of the invader so it is destroyed on sight by any white blood cells. I am supposed to believe that all this happened by accident? That my body and all it's incredible designs is somehow a cosmic mistake? I refuse to believe that. You may believe in luck, but I don't. For you to sit there reading this screen with eyes that rival Supercomputers in computing power, refraction, light composition, and imaging connected to a brain that has Random Access Memory that could only be measured in the Billions of Terrabytes and say that you are a mistake, go ahead, I feel for you buddy, the evidence is all around you of God's creations, but if you want to keep denying him Go ahead, he gave you that free will of yours. Say what you want. Build your house of cards, in then end if I'm wrong, no big deal, but if you are wrong well, you'll have some explaining to do.

quote:Originally posted by LostInSpace:

quote:Originally posted by Wolferz: Evolution is happening as we speak. Want Proof? I will put forth a statement but I will not provide proof ,simply because I do not have access to the research, but, always the big but, Take a look at the organism that causes the Flu, Every year they seem to discover a stronger strain of the virus, therefore that virus is adapting to it's environment so that it may proliferate it's species.Evolving if you will.My eldest son is taller than me, does that prove that evolution exists. No, it proves that he's had better healthcare, better nutrition and a better environment than I did growing up. I grew up hungry, Cold and poor as hell. However my son doesn't have additional fingers, ESP or anything other than what he got from me, same with the flu. Just because it's "Better" doesn't mean that it "evolved" into something new.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Give me ONE, just one example of a fossil being out of place in the strata, that has not been geologically explained. Just one....Skeletons of ten perfectly modern humans have been excavated from fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone, over an area spanning about 50 by 100 feet. This formation is a member of the Lower Cretaceous, supposedly 140 million years old. It is known for its dinosaurs and is the same formation found at Dinosaur National Monument. If you would like to read more: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-13-t-000869.html Please explain that one away.

quote:Originally posted by Vixef: Woha... This is the first time I wholeheartedly agree with Jaguar. Darkling, just because science cannot prove every aspect of a theory doesnÔÇÖt mean that the theory is false. Did I ever say that the theory of Evolution was false? What are you reading? What I said is that the theory of Evolution is just that. It is a Theory. Just because I said that it's not a fact doesn't mean that I said it is false. The main point that I'm trying to make here is that Evolutionists have their Theory and Creationist have their Theory. Evolutionists have facts to "support" their claims and Creationist have facts to "support" their claims, but neither side can be PROVEN correct. What about this isn't true?

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Microbiology is based mainly on evolutionary theory, without the theory of evolution, there would be no theory of microbiology.Uhmmm.. Microbiology came from Electron Microscopes and the ability to STUDY it. There is nothing Theoretical about Microbiology. Again, where do you get your facts. quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Why do you think they did the genome mapping project, because there were number of things that evolution stated HAD to be true, so they had to map the genome to find out. Guess what? So far so good, nothing has been found that is unexpected, thanks to the theory of evolution.NOTHING FOUND UNEXPECTED??? OK Now, I know that you don't know what you are talking about. One of the BIGGEST theory's of Evolution was Debunked by the Genome Mapping project. Evolutionist held that the Huge area of DNA that wasn't actually used to assign use to the different parts of our bodies was "Junk" DNA, it was left over by the evolutionary process and had bits of DNA left over from the time that we were Ameoba's through to the time that we were apes. The Genome Mapping Project PROVED that this in fact was CORRECTIVE DNA that prevented Errors or Major Changes in DNA. The EXACT opposite of what the Evolutionary Theory said that it was! quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: What word games you play, if I were speaking to a scientist, and said that evolution was a fact, I would get pretty much a blank stare and thought that I was stupid, because in science, to scientists, there are no such things as FACTS, only evidence.LMFAO, You're really going off the deep end here. OK let's take this slow. Scientist Find a Fact (As above) The fact that they find is that only a small percentage of DNA is actually used by our bodies. They don't know what the rest does. They come up with a THEORY to explain what this huge area of DNA is used for. In other words there is irrefutable FACT, then there is THEORY to explain the unknown. Later when the Genome Mapping project is complete, they realize that the THEORY that they came up with to Explain this was WRONG, they now have a NEW FACT that has been irrefutably proven that this DNA actually keeps the portion that we use from changing. So in Science you first come up with a THEORY to explain how you THINK something works, and then you set out to PROVE IT. Once you find the true answer, you then have what is called a FACT. If you don't find the true answer, then it is still only a THEORY. quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: .... because in science there are NO facts, the sun is hot, theory, And you accuse ME of playing word games. "The Sun is hot" IRREFUTABLE FACT, not Theory. The evidence doesn't "Suggest" that it is hot, the Evidence PROVES that it is hot, so it is a Fact. SOME researches and scientists like to say that there are no such things as facts, but that's just a bunch of semantics, there is a HUGE distinction in science between irrefutable facts and theory. quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Geez, I really hate explaining this basic stuff, so I usually don't, then again, I stated that there are no facts in science, and to a layman, such as yourself, it was bound to confuse.Please continue, BTW, before I decided to go into Computer Programming, I majored in Biology, I originally wanted to go into research, but please, I'm just a Layman, that understands nothing. One other thing, your insistence that other areas of science are all Theoretical is a bunch of bull. You donÔÇÖt seem to be able to have the mental capacity to GRASP the fact that there are two distinct areas of science. One area of science deals with the theoretical to try to explain what science, true science canÔÇÖt explain. You seem to be getting that confused with things like Microbiology, which is the study of REAL micro-organisms, not THEORETICAL ones. When you sit there and say that there are no such things as facts, well is it a Theory that you are alive? Is it a theory that you have blood? Is it a theory that you will die one day? No these are all irrefutable facts; we KNOW them to be true. However, I have a theory; my theory is that God put us on this earth so we can experience what it is like to live without him. How when we live our daily lives without his guidance we REALLY foul things up, and he wants us to learn that lesson before making everything right. That is a theory, it is unproven, and do I know it to be true, absolutely not. I donÔÇÖt know. Just as scientist donÔÇÖt know for a fact that living things came from non-living things, why because it has NEVER been proven, theyÔÇÖve tried over and over again and put the best of the worlds minds on it to duplicate the ÔÇ£pond scumÔÇØ that we came from, but they couldnÔÇÖt do it. So it remains in the theoretical realm, not in the factual realm of things that CAN be proven. The sooner you understand this, the sooner you will start to understand the creationist view. Note that I didnÔÇÖt say you had to believe it.

quote:Originally posted by Shingen: I'm confused. Are you going to make the final patch intentionally NOT work with gf4 mx 440 cards even with the old drivers that simulate the vertex shader, and if you are, why? I'm confused too, My cousin runs UC on his evo Compaq with an Intel Extreme Card that simulates the vertex shader and it runs great on his machine. I think he would be very disappointed if he applied a patch and it stopped working.

quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: cancer treatment that saved your great aunt Beth, thank evolutionary theory for that discovery.how so? quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Have you heard about the new treatments that they have come up with to treat parkinsons disease, leukemia, etc, etc ad nauseum, thank the theory of evolution for that, You know all the new flu shots that they come up with every year to fight the NEW strain of Influenza? Thank the theory of evolution for the answer to it..Actually most of those Came from the genome mapping project. Where do you get your fact? quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Remember Astronomy is "just a theory" remember that electricity is "just a theory" Gravity is "just a theory", computer science is "just a theory", electronics engineering, nanotechnology, rocketry, internal combustion engines are ALL "just theories". Actually, no they are not. quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Pitiful, just plain pitiful.What, that I have a different opinion than your, or that you resort to name calling at the end of a discussion you feel you are losing? quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: For a Theory that isn't true, it sure has a lot of people, SCIENTISTS and researchers that not only understand it, but believe that it is indeed the BEST theory to explain the evidence that we have.First you acknowledge it's a theory, then You claim it's a fact. quote:Originally posted by Jaguar: Evolution is a FACT, it is as close to a fact as a theory can come. There is NO other theory that can explain the evidence as well.Make up your mind. P.S. Please excuse Minor spelling errors. I was using my Tablet PC and handwriting recognition sometimes screws up. Who knows, maybe it will evolve into something better

Yeah I have a total of 1050 XP ... 250 each from 4 captured craft plus 50 from Pixan.

I am so sick and tired of everyone saying "There's overwhelming evidence" and yet fed that they don't need to provide this evidence. Everyone loves to say there is plenty of evidence, but then point to more theories to explain.