Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Daxx

Pages: 1 ... 568 569 [570]
Spore: Creation Corner / Re: Spore Boxart
« on: June 09, 2005, 10:46:24 am »
something understated. Click!

props to deeplee for the blank, and imageshack for the hosting.

Spore: General / Re: A Little Bit of Info About You...
« on: June 09, 2005, 10:21:40 am »
Known as: Daxx
Real Name: Dave
Location: Devon, UK / Oxford, UK
Occupation: Student
Found Spore: on Slashdot
Found GamingSteve: /. again...
Hangs out in the forums: when I've nothing else to do. Which bizarrely seems to be a lot these days.
Known for: Board Game Design, long and rambling Game Theory papers and for being an incorrigible Grammar Nazi.
Favourite Quote: The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. (George Bernard Shaw)

Spore: General / Re: Plants!
« on: June 09, 2005, 10:13:33 am »
Makes you wonder about robot plants... hmmm...

Spore: General / Re: Dyson Spheres
« on: June 09, 2005, 10:09:04 am »
A Dyson sphere might be the ultimate protection for a angorophobic (or hopelessley violent) species.
Think about it, the sphere would emit no light from the star and could be shielded to keep in the EM. There's no way a civilization could find you. (especially if you have taken a liking to obliterating worlds 8)  )

Oblig. Star Wars quote-
"Lost a planet, Master Obi-Wan has. How embarrassing… how embarrassing. Gravity's silhouette remains, but the star and all of its planets have disappeared. How can this be?"

Forum Games / Re: What do you think?
« on: June 08, 2005, 02:47:09 pm »

Spore: General / Re: Contact spore team?
« on: June 08, 2005, 02:29:11 pm »
What game do you suggest making? This could be interesting...

Spore: General / Re: carnivore, omnivore or herbivore?
« on: June 08, 2005, 02:13:37 pm »
There's a good reason that most creatures who aren't plants eat them. But I don't know whether Spore will deal with stuff like trophic levels, it'll be interesting to see.

Spore: Creation Corner / Re: Spore Boxart
« on: June 08, 2005, 01:47:30 pm »
I remember back when every game came with a manual you could pick up and take with you, and read anywhere. One of the best things about games when I was little was taking the manual out of the box on the way home from the shop to get a preview. I really do hope we get a proper manual. Last one I saw was for MOO3, I think.

Everything Else / Re: How old are you?
« on: June 08, 2005, 01:40:30 pm »
Woo! 18! Being an adult rocks, with the drinking, and the driving, and the all sorts of things that younger people can't do, like being sent to jail!
What country.
I am the youngest person(other than that 10year old).I am 12.


Rule Brittania...  ;D

You cannot just define something into existence.

That is not what this argument does. This argument shows that a creator is a necessary being, through the first premise that the universe exists and cause and effect apply to the universe. The starting point is undoubted, and there are no definitions here to call anything into existence. The argument shows logically that there must be what we simply call - because of this - a necessary being.

The cosmological argument has been refuted thoroughly many many times. The fallacy here is called special pleading. You say that everything must have a cause, except God. Whyis he excepted? You can as easily say that the universe itself did not have a cause and that it always existed. That explains the origin of the universe just as well as a God creating it.

You are referring to Russell? That the universe is just a brute fact? Because of course you cannot claim that the universe has no cause, being by it's nature time-based and causal... you see, the meaning of the word becomes apparent in this context. If you do claim that the universe does not adhere to causal laws, then you are arguing that cause and effect are not linked, essentially the basis of all our scientific observations. Of course you may be arguing that the universe is eternal. This contradicts our best current evidence. If the universe is just a brute fact, then I give you Copleston's reply to Russell:
"If one does not wish to embark on the path which leads us to the affirmation of a transcendent being ... one has to deny the reality of the problem and assert that things 'just are' and that the existential problem in question is just a pseudo-problem. And if one refuses to even sit down at the chess board and make a move, one cannot, of course, be checkmated."
I suggest that you are simply avoiding the question. Perhaps you should come up with an alternative explanation.

And it is more preferable according to Occam's Principle, since the introduction of a God requires additional assumptions (supernatural beings, magic etc).

Why must this be the case? Possibly with a Judeo-Christian image of God, but the argument simply necessitates a 'Prime Mover'. This can be as simple as you like.

This is the solipsist fallacy: Nothing is real except yourself.

Why should solipsism be a fallacy? It is the only philosophical stance that has absolute unimpeachable evidence. In any case you are posing a straw man. My original point was to show that Evolutionism is just as much a belief structure as any other, not that we must accept solipsism. My personal opinion (I am no longer playing devil's advocate) is that we must reject solipsism or suffer a lack of direction and purpose to our lives.

Creationists argue that there is evidence for design. Socrates, Xenophon, Paley, Mill, Mitchell, Swinburne and Tennant seemed to think there was - and I highlight Mill as being of note because he was famous for attacking the idea, then conceding that most attacks rely on the God in question being a Judeo-Christian deity.

Devil's Advocate  :P (I love being contrary!)
PS. Hitchhiker's Guide Rules!

EDIT: I have been asked to remove subsequent posts and not continue posting, along with the sage advice that trolls should not be fed. Apologies, all.

Spore: General / Re: Plants!
« on: June 08, 2005, 09:49:18 am »
I remember that old disney cartoon on mars, and what various authors throughout past centuries envisioned life would be like on it. Some of it was pretty cool. Like one plant that kept barbs on springy vines coiled tightly against its main body, but when an insect or whatever came to close. BOING! Out shot the barb, spearing it, and dragging it in to be devoured. Actually, I think there are sea creatures with similar mechanisms.

Or indeed animals like the chameleon, with their tongues.

Everything Else / Re: How old are you?
« on: June 08, 2005, 08:17:05 am »
Woo! 18! Being an adult rocks, with the drinking, and the driving, and the all sorts of things that younger people can't do, like being sent to jail!

Edit: Well, being 19 rules too.

Edit: As does 20, I guess. Though there's a nagging feeling that I may soon have to stop acting like an adolescent.

Portable Games / Re: Board games?
« on: June 08, 2005, 08:12:59 am »
Settlers of Catan (with the cities and knights and the seathing expension), Risk is a great game

Settlers rocks, but I don't like the expansions. Civ is also nice, but you can't beat the old abstract board games.

Spore: General / Re: what kind of animal will you make (new poll)
« on: June 08, 2005, 08:09:03 am »
Most definitely a crab. I love Pratchett's description in the Science of Discworld (anyone read that book?) of Crabbity, the civilisation of crabs with crab statues made out of spit etc. Plus, the extra arms and legs are always useful for something...

I feel I must reply to some of the responses in this thread, just to clear up some discrepancies. Sorry about the lengthy nature of the post.

Um, no. There's plenty of factual evidence for evolution (and none against, incidentally), from fossil records to vestigial organs and everything in between. That several religions choose to ignore them doesn't magically make them go away. The supposed inexistence of factual basis for evolution is a (rather blatant) lie that religions groups, especially Catholics and Christians, have been desperately trying to spread lately.

This is true. There is plenty of factual evidence for evolution. Of course, there is also factual evidence for creationism, as well as other theories. (To pre-empt your response, I cite the Bible, theories on Intelligent Design and the Teleological arguments and Religious Experience. These are all just as factual as the evidence you cite; bearing in mind that being factual carries no sense of truth, because a fact can be just as likely wrong as right. However, the covering up of evidence and lying is reprehensible.

And to anyone that says yeah well you Catholics are in the same category, I say....exactly. Which is what makes us both RELIGIOUS, and not factual.

Catolicism isn't nearly close to the same category. Besides the already discussed factual evidence, Occam's razor cuts through religion much more easily than through evolution. 

I might differ. This is a very inappropriate use of Mr. Occam’s principle. Besides the fact that you cannot use his principle to ‘prove’ something (it being merely a general principle for certain circumstances – I would suggest quantum theory is more complicated than Newtonian physics, for example – you have posited no proof of your implied claim that evolution as a theory is less complicated than any other theories, including creationism.

Also, evolution isn't a religion or a belief (so "believing in evolution" is a wrong statement). It's a scientific theory and, as such, individuals choose to accept it based solely on the proof presented to them, and nothing else. No "faith" is required or expected to cover up obvious holes in its logical reasoning.

Actually, evolutionism, or the accepting of evolution as the method of our creation, is. It is a meme, just as creationism is. Logical Positivist principles can show us that any standpoint is a belief, because all proof for any creation theory is at best indirect; you have not seen it personally.

'Sides if you believe in Evolution, this is just more proof that for something to needs to be C R E A T E D.

Ah. So, who created God then?

You are obviously not familiar with the Cosmological argument for the existence of God. This shows that without infinite regress the properties of God do not require Him to be created – he is defined to be outside of temporal causality and so does not have to conform to the rules of cause and effect.

Um, you're quite misguided, and I see that a very over-simplificated paleoanthropology has been fed to you. From the Smithsonian National Musseum of Natural History:

You are correct. His argument is poorly constructed.

Again, it seems your actual knowledge about evolution is rather limited. There is no "weaker" and "stronger" species, only "fitter" for their enviroments. "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker" are good reads on this, I suggest you check them out.

As you are an avid reader of Dawkins, you should understand that his arguments are loaded with value judgements, and therefore must be read carefully. The same is true of any book on this topic – all have their own perceptions and seek to convert others, to the cult of Creationism, and to the cult of Evolutionism. They are indeed good reads – Dawkins’ ideas have merit as theories.

Also, no offense, but it seems that even the most elemental common knowledge about evolution eludes you as well. Man never evolved from monkeys; apes, monkeys and humans all evolved from common ancestors, most of which are now, indeed, extinct. I thought (or perhaps, hoped) even creationists would know as much. I would beg that you research even a bit of the most basic facts about evolution before embarrasing yourself any further. Surely you have, at the very least, heard about the neanderthal and cro-magnon?

This is unfortunately the state many uninformed people are in. To understand an issue you must analyse all sides. Many (especially in the US, and unfortunately also in the UK, as well as around the world) base their judgements without information. You accuse each other of having no perspective, and I urge you both (and others) to read both sides of the issue.

In any case, time and again, throughout all history, most if not all factual information about religion has been proven to be made up

And this gem of a fact comes from where?

Does that make it a hard solid fact? I guess to most it does
But if matter can neither be created nor destroyed, where did the universe come from?

The problem with dapunisher’s argument is that he uses a poor analogy. This would equally work with any string of cause and effect. His reasoning goes that there has been found no Sufficient Reason for matter (or matter/energy, if you prefer, we all know it’s the same thing).

We don't know.
And that simple phrase is, precisely, what distinguises science from religion and what makes your comparison valid. We don't claim to know everything, and more importantly, we don't make up the bits we don't know. We provide several theories but we don't pass them as "truth". The Big Bang is still a theory; if a better, more likely one comes up, it'll surely replace it.

This is quite true, but irrelevant. This does nothing more to validate your theory.

But let's end it here, like gentleman shall we?

Haha, classic. "Let's end this after I've said all I wanted". I have a better idea, let's finish this NOW, after I've proven the extent of your scientific knowledge. 
Like gentlemen, huh?

How’s about we finish this now? No argument is ever finished until all propositions are exhausted. I find your arrogance breathtaking, but I also take issue with dapunisher’s apparent ignorance. I can play devil’s advocate all day, if you want, it’s not really an issue.

Pages: 1 ... 568 569 [570]