Eclipse

I leave with the memories that there was once one zone of sanity and order amidst the chaos. Perchance it will spread...

Ah.. they aren't too bad yet. :

quote: Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr: 2. Shuttle towing. Later, the shuttle speed will depend on the mass of the object its towing. Have it tow a Stormcarrier, and you'll be there a week trying to leave the region. Drat... So much for dragging those blasted diplomats to their destination...

Let me preface this. Yes I am quoting portions of the Koran, but I am in no means advocating Islam. I am simply doing this to provide support for my point. Ok, What DO the islamic fundamentalists such as Bin Laden want? Their primary desire is NOT less American intervention. First lets look at what the Koran or Qur'an has to say about unbelievers. " 4.101: And when you journey in the earth, there is no blame on you if you shorten the prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve will cause you distress, surely the unbelievers are your open enemy." "2.98: Whoever is the enemy of Allah and His angels and His apostles and Jibreel and Meekaeel, so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers. " "48.29: Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." Now we know that unbelievers are to Islam enemies, but WHO are the unbelievers. "5.51: Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship will become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers." What is to be done to these unbelievers, the enemies of Islam? According to the Koran, this is the correct actions of a believer. "9.73: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." "9.29: Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in Allah nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what Allah and His apostle have forbidden and do not embrace the true faith until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." "2.:190: Kill them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. But do not fight them within the precincts of the Holy Mosque unless they attack you there;" No matter what you think, western civilization was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. They are a part of our culture and because of these principles to the Islamics we are unbelievers worthy only of war and death. Islam will not be satisfied with the status quo, it will rest only when it has completely destroyed western culture and replaced it with its own. The only reason it has not been overtly aggressive is that militarily and technalogically, the west is supperior to them and that they would never survive open conflict. That is why they resort to terror.

Keep moving, watch for visual ques in the bridge view, watch where damaged fighters return, HJ somewhere and drop off some leaches. The possibilities are endless. Urza, he is in a cruiser and can't cloak.

Thanks Derek.

Take care Mike, see ya when you get back.

test [ 12-01-2001: Message edited by: Eclipse ]

One minor annoyance I've had all the way through the beta is the damage ratio with main cannons, especially those on fighters. Fighters can put out an insane amout of firepower for their size and one can decimate a carrier or crusier in a single pass. It really doesn't seem like a massive and heavily defended station or carrier when a little fighter can shred it in seconds. Was there any reaon why the damage for those cannons are so high or the rate of fire is so high?

Nah we pop into their discussions as well. It provides some nice banter to break the monotony.

Charles. I just picked up Omicron as well. It doesn't like joysticks. If you have one attached, remove it and try again.

quote: And why did planes get into picture. We were talking about tanks vs. mechs War ain't Total Annihilation MP. You don't outlaw certain weapons and have a gentlemans duel. If your opponent can't force you not to use a weapon, then you will use that weapon to your advantage. Case in point. We don't stop bombing Afghanistan and send in infantry because the Taliban doesn't have an effective airforce. We use our aircraft to eliminate them because it is the most ecomonical way of dealing with the threat while putting the fewest American servicemen and American political intrests at risk. However... If, hypothetically, mechs are better than tanks, an intelligent commander won't send in armored divisions to get toasted. He will look for an alternative. In this case aircraft are that alternative; they are an effective means of targeting and destroying the threat. War isn't chess: the playing field doesn't always start equal.

Looks like I'm a little late. Welcome the the Insurgency.

After I upgraded to 1.5GB, I find that MAX dips into the swap file less... at least until I get up to about 1 or 2 mil polys.

Charles, the only messenger I can use ATM is Yahoo. Drop me a message, my name is vaaish.

I believe I still have the files for Rattler's old Insurgent 1 site and a partially complete insurgent uniform 3d model.

Jag, Just because the EXISTING evidence doesn't support a theory, there is no stopping people from searching for REAL evidence. Evolution will never be confirmed nor will it ever be completely tossed aside. Just as creationism can not be proved nor will it be tossed aside. I've never presented a case for creationism. I've simply shown that with what we currently know, evolution cannot be proved and must be taken on faith just like creation. And that was the whole point of this side trip. BTW, I'm not upset in the least. In fact I found several of your responces quite humorous. Aaron

And you choose to IGNORE all of the points SHOWING that there is no proof. I have not ignored facts, you simply HAVE NOT presented any that can withstand scrutany even by OTHER EVOLUTIONISTS. Yet you press onward to say that I am ignorant. I find it very difficult to accept something that claims to be SCIENCE yet has never had ANY proof and has been repeatedly plagued by hoaxes and misinformation to try to gain some basis. I don't just believe in creationism because my Bible say that happened, I look around at all the LUDICROUS statements and facts evolutionists put forward. How do you explain where all the matter for the universe came from? They can't. How about creating life from non life? They tried that and science failed. What about transitional forms? We don't have anything there either. Punctuated Equilibrium? One day a chicken laid and egg and a monkey popped out. No proof here either. Any evidence of helpful mutation? Nope sorry, look at the fruit fly experiment. What about the geologic column? No dice here either. We have yet to fin all the layers in the proper order. How can you explain the evolution of the bombadier beetle? You can't. The beetle would have died out before it developed all the special organs it needs to survive using it's OWN weapon. What about the Celocanth? We classified that as a transitional form millions of years old. Guess what? They caught a LIVE one in the early 1900's. Guess what? It hadn't changed from the supposedly ancient fossils. Time and time again, transitional forms have been "found" only to be reclassified when more of the remains appear or tossed aside as hoaxes. One of the steps of the scientific method is OBSERVE, no one has observed evolution happening, nor observed proof of it. If you don't follow the scientific method how say what you are trying to prove is SCIENCE? You can't, it must then be taken by faith. Aaron [ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Eclipse ]

There is nothing to prove with creationism. I believe it by faith. I've said over and over that it can't be proved by science, just like evolution can't. Both must be accepted by faith. The "evidence" you have presented has been refuted by evolutionists and creationists alike, so far none of your "facts" have held up. Your "source" is nothing more than a amalgamation of "I hate creationists" propaganda with very FEW actual instances of "evidence." What they did present is easy to refute, and not by just creationist information. There are NO transitional forms, without them we have Punctuated equilibrium, and to belive that you have to belive something that has no scientific basis or evidence to back up. You believe evolution by FAITH, I believe Creationism by FAITH. You believe in a Godless universe in which man is only a glorified animal. As such where is the sanctity of Human life? I believe in the special creation of man. He is not an animal, but created in the image of God. As such, human life is special. And yes, there are times that that life must be taken away, but it is not something to be cheapened or tossed away as we hunt animals. Aaron

quote: Can we prove it CONCLUSIVELY? Probably NOT because it has not been PROVED Conclusively yet. Isn't this a little something called circular reasoning? Either way in saying this you have just said that it will be impossible to prove evolution. Since it is impossible to prove according to you, it must be accepted by FAITH not SCIENCE. quote: Well, I have showed you my source. Do you have one to offer? Or are you a scientist specializing in evolution theory? or biology. Are you a Scientist? I have read everybody's posts and the creationists replies so far have been, well that's been proven false. So, where are your Sites backing these statements? Or do you have Intimate knowledge of this subject? I for one need to rely on other peoples work because I am NOT a scientist of any type. Reread the info I posted on refuting a couple of the points your site stated for evolution. I believe you will find my sources... or didn't you read everything I posted? Aaron

Jag, those AREN'T FACTS! I only had time to talk about two of them, but those that I posted on other EVOLUTIONISTS even agree are NOT transitional forms. So much for irrefutable. If facts are proven facts I accept them, I do not accept specualtion and imaginative renderings as fact. I like science as much as the next guy, but evolution isn't a science. I've not tried to disprove evolution above creationism, I've simply shown that there are not facts to back up evolution and that BOTH must be taken by FAITH. Since both require faith, neither is a science and neither should be taught as such. This brings us back to the original topic. Since both are faith based, conceivably NEITHER should be taught in schools. And it should be up to the parents to teach children the origins or our universe. After they have a foundation of which they believe to be truth they can take science courses from which ever perspective they believe to be correct. [ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: Eclipse ]

Jag, I read through that site, and my impression was that of a three year old whining because the "evil" creationists won't roll over and die for him.

Hmmm... So much stuff to go through, Please forgive me for not talking about each "fact." Yes, very interesting stories. I'm sorry creating a transitional form from a single bone or tooth is not science, it's desperation. The Horse series: Why have these fossils been found all over the world and not together. Whouldn't it be logical that the next "step" would be in the same location or near the location of the previous? Why do the vertebrae and rib counts jump around so much? I'll end this one with a quote: quote: "l admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable ...". Dr. Niles Eldredge Ardipithecus ramidus: quote: FOSSILIZED bones of a hominid, which was said to be ancestral to the famous 'Lucy' skeleton, were found in late 1994 in Ethiopia. The creature was categorized as Australopithecus ramidus, and was hailed in newspapers as the oldest human ancestor. The discoverer, Tim White, and his Ethiopian colleagues, have since unearthed a nearly complete skeleton of the same creature. It can now be seen to be too chimp-like to be claimed as a human ancestor, and has been renamed Ardipithecus ramidus and put in a completely new genus.National Geographic, March 1996 (p. 117) I find it very interesting that "hominid succession" contains so much filler about each "link" when most have either been reclassified or are based off of a single bone or tooth. This isn't fact or evidence, it is extreme speculation. It has plagued those trying desperately to "prove" evolution for years, take for instance the Nebraska Man, Java Man, Piltdown Man, the Celocanth, and others. All have been found to be hoaxes or creatures that are still alive and UNCHANGED. I am not putting Creation down as a science, it is not. It is based on faith and faith is not science. However looking at the complexity of this world we can use science to understand God's creation. Evolution too is not a science, it has not been proved and neither will it be proved. It is a desperate attempt to remove God from the picture so fallen man can justify his actions. With such exaggerated "evidence" and false series, Evolution must be taken on FAITH, as such it is not a science. Aaron

I've had this same thing happening, haven't figgured out a solution.