Will creationists buy/play this game?

[Hugo Rune]

You're mixing us up with the Agnostics. We atheists are nihilistic, militaristic bastards.

[Eggman]

Well, 70 feet of water can cause a whole lot of havoc. Especially when many of the major mountain ranges haven't even been formed yet.

If I read my scientific history right, the dinosaurs lived from approximately 250 to 65 million years ago. The Himalayas *started* to form 70 million years ago. The Appalachians (the oldest mountain chain in North America) pre-date the dinosaurs. Not all those mountain ranges are going to be there.

And I wouldn't want to be between the mountains and the ocean when water rises 70 feet. Combined with a nice climate change, survival could get very tough. And dinosaurs don't seem the type of creatures that adapt easily to mountain life.

A 70 feet rise in ocean waters would be one major disaster. I make no claim that it could cause a mass extinction (what can cause a mass extinction is still up to debate in scientific circles) but it certainly could be a major hardship and a very interesting development in the game.

[Harel]

And proud of it Hugo

And Michael, the second word in 'free thinking' is thinking. The only pre-requirement to liberal minds is thinking, and no creationist really think about ideals.
Clining to the same outdated beliefs to the sole reason that your fore-fathers belive in, inspite of anything five thousands years of science have to say it just not intelligent, all said.
It might be tradiontal, but it certianly not thinking

[Stefu]

Mikey,

Woo-oo. And them religious type, they are polite and clean and pure and all that.

Anyway, I believe yes. Remember the Civ starting demo? That advocated the concept of big bang and evolution, and still creationists played Civ. I think...

[Maniac]

I'm back! Nice faces, btw .

But what do I see here? I had never realised until now that Apolyton had such a large population of lunatic bastards.
Creationism???????
Come on. Some almighty person, saying, "thou shall bread", or something like that, and creating the universe? Just ridiculous. I want proof. And nothing, nothing, supports the idea of a sudden creation.
Though far from everything about evolution is known, there is some scientific evidence.
I can't understand how someone can neglect that in favour of some book of a superprimitive civilization.

BTW, for all those moronic creationists-fundamentalists out here, I have a question.

Genesis 1 says that the world is created in seven days.

Genesis 2 doesn't talk about that at all and begins with the creation of humans (Adam and Eva).

Now any person who thinks a little bit about what he reads, sees there are some serious opposite things told in those stories.

So, which one is the 'right one'?
(still have to meet the first person with an answer to that)

BTW2, when you do exegesis on Genesis 2, you would realize that it's not at all about the creation of the universe or humanity.

In the beginning of the story in the original language, the word 'adam' is used, which means earth-being.

Then, when there is taken a rib from adam, the words 'isj' and 'isja' are mentioned, which mean 'man' and 'woman', and the word adam isn't used anymore.
So the woman isn't made out of the man; she's made out of the earthbeing.
How the man is created isn't even mentioned at all.

The story actually wants to say that man and woman are equal. But through all that translations (Hebrew, Greek, Latin, then probably English), the word adam was translated as man.

All this explanation for saying something I thought was obvious:
This story doesn't act at all about the creation of anything. That's just all symbolic poetic language.
Only (fundamentalist) fools take it litteral.
It wants to say that man and woman are equal. So the emancipation idea isn't new.

M@ni@c
nihilistic, militaristic, rational thinking, arrogant jerk

(Arrogant is at least what traditionalist scum say of people like me who are self-willed. But in face of such inferior/primitive/not-self thinking people as some of you, that is a big virtue.)

[Rasputin00]

Umm not wishing to impose my self upon these intelectuals here, but as I see it, the truth of all this debate relates to faith, For creationists they trace a line back to god who has always been there. Evolutiuonists trace a line back to the big bang, which occurred from matter that had always been there.
The choice is left to logical people, which is more logical, lifeless matter floating around for an infinity waiting for the big bang, or a live god....

As I said place your faith where you want, but regardless of what BOTH sides say, neither side has proof of the beginnings, so it is just Faith, a belief system, not science.

If the Creationists are wrong they will be laughed at all their life, if the evolutionists are wrong ....................


------------------
Rasputin The Mad Monk, Lover of the Russian Queen

[Atahualpa]

Rasputin: Not exactly. The Big Bang hasnt always been there. What has always been there is vakuum and out of this vakuum our universe was created.

But the point is, while creationists havent got anything to back up their arguments (besides a thousand year old book), scientists have the background hmm, hows that called in english? You know that 3kelvin background thing. Then the fact that the colors of galaxies that move away are red and the ones that coming closer are blue. Therefore that most galaxies are red, we can assume that we are all drifting away and that the universe expands. But well, an expanding universe does need a middlepoint right?

Ata

[Bblue]

My only post in this topic, and my last...

The only narrow 'fundamentalist' minds I've seen in this forurm are trying to speak from a 'science' veiw point! These are the people who haven't taken the time to thourghly think this thru for themselves.. rather they are preaching that they have been taught instead of think on it themselves!


Science is based on logic:
Assumption: An all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s) creates a universe. Said deity(s) desires to make it look as if said universe is 'old' according to the 'natural laws' of that universe, said deity(s) don't want presense obvious.
Reasons: Unknown, no refrence frame for all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s)
Conclusion: universe looks 'old' and no scientific presense of aforementioned diety(s) discoverable (it's part of that all-powerful, omnipotent thing)

Science can NEVER PROVE or DISPROVE the 'reality' of an all-powerful diety(s); if that diety(s) exsists and if that diety(s) does not wish it's presence known. The whole damn arguement is moot! It is a question of faith.

Personally do I believe?: Think it is EXTREMELY unlikely, but guess what.. I can't prove it.


M@ni@c:
"(Arrogant is at least what traditionalist scum say of people like me who are self-willed. But in face of such inferior/primitive/not-self thinking people as some of you, that is a big virtue.)"

No.. it is what most people says about you. traditionalist scum or not. Your 'fundamentalist preaching' is as bad as thiers.


Rasputin00:

"big bang, which occurred from matter that had always been there. "

No.. not by ANY current theory. Space, Time, Energy, and especially Matter all these terms totally lose any meaning when you start talking about 'the beginning' (looking back as time approaches 0)

Atahualpa:

"What has always been there is vakuum and out of this vakuum our universe was created."
and
"an expanding universe does need a middlepoint right?"

Part I: No, the big bang theory discribes the expansion of SPACE and the universe itself, not just the matter and energy in it, Vacuum has no frame of referance 'outside' of the universe

Part II: No... well, actually.. every point can by viewed as the centerpoint, it has to do with hyper-diminsionality and what it is that is exactly expanding (ie. space-time itself, the matter and energy is basically just along for the ride) I'd suggest read anything by Stephen Hawkings.


and to the 'fundamentalist' religious types (even though I haven't seen you post, I know you are out there).. stop knocking on my door in the middle of the day and trying to save me.... I work nights, I need my sleep.


Said my peace , exit stage left...
[This message has been edited by Bblue (edited December 22, 1999).]

[Atahualpa]

Bblue: The Big Bang was the result out of a vacuum. And created our universe. Or better was the origin of our universe.

No, sorry I havent read anything by Steven Hawking. But some other author/scientists or were it more said that it might be that universes are just like balls and that more than 1 universe can coexist. It is also possible that such universes are connected by wormholes. Although that stuff is quite sf, there is a possibility of being true.

Ata

[Eggman]

Ahem.

Move the religious debate over to Off-Topic. Unless you have something related to the subject, of course.

[DinoDoc]

Assumption: An all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s) creates a universe. Said deity(s) desires to make it look as if said universe is 'old' according to the 'natural laws' of that universe, said deity(s) don't want presense obvious.
Reasons: Unknown, no refrence frame for all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s)
Conclusion: universe looks 'old' and no scientific presense of aforementioned diety(s) discoverable (it's part of that all-powerful, omnipotent thing)

Bblue- I am going to make the assumption the there are Invisible Pink Unicorns on your desk right now. Can you prove me wrong? I did not think so. Does that make my assumption as "scientific" as yours? Why/why not? They both depend on the same for of circular reasoning to reach thier conclusions.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Eggman on 12-19-1999 12:11 PM
St Leo: A giant flood is not that ridiculous an idea. If the Ice Age can lower water levels to the point where Asia and North America are joined, it is possible for the ice caps to melt and raise ocean levels abruptly.

The problem here is to propose a mechanism through which ice caps melt "abruptly." Science requires evidence. Any assertions that lacks any basis is merely hot air.

Originally posted by Eggman on 12-20-1999 09:52 AM

If I read my scientific history right, the dinosaurs lived from approximately 250 to 65 million years ago. The Himalayas *started* to form 70 million years ago. The Appalachians (the oldest mountain chain in North America) pre-date the dinosaurs. Not all those mountain ranges are going to be there.

And I wouldn't want to be between the mountains and the ocean when water rises 70 feet. Combined with a nice climate change, survival could get very tough. And dinosaurs don't seem the type of creatures that adapt easily to mountain life.

A 70 feet rise in ocean waters would be one major disaster. I make no claim that it could cause a mass extinction (what can cause a mass extinction is still up to debate in scientific circles) but it certainly could be a major hardship and a very interesting development in the game.

Considering that it takes hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years, for mountains to raise to current heights and Ice Ages occurred after dinosaur extinction (or near the very end of their reign), it is hard to see what this increase in sea water level has anything to do with their extinction.

Also remember that dinosaurs lived in a very hot and humid climate, much more so than we have now. This means there weren't much polar ice caps - if any at all - and most of the water was in liquid form.

Originally posted by Rasputin00 on 12-22-1999 10:58 AM
Umm not wishing to impose my self upon these intelectuals here, but as I see it, the truth of all this debate relates to faith, For creationists they trace a line back to god who has always been there. Evolutiuonists trace a line back to the big bang, which occurred from matter that had always been there.

Not true. Consider these:

1. Most Christians aren't creationists. The Pontiff has embraced evolution. Hence, by extension, all Catholics embrace evolution. Liberal Protestants have no problem accepting evolution as well. That clearly shows only fundamentalist Christians are creationists and not everybody who "trace(s) a line back to the Big Bang?"

2. Please differentiate between evolution, the origin of life (abiogenesis), and the origin of the universe. Evolutionists need not agree on abiogensis, let alone origin of the universe.

Originally posted by Rasputin00 on 12-22-1999 10:58 AM
The choice is left to logical people, which is more logical, lifeless matter floating around for an infinity waiting for the big bang, or a live god....

Apparently you don't understand the Big Bang theory. Modern cosmology states that time as we know it started with the Big Bang.

If one thinks the Big Bang is absurd, how much more absurd is an infinite being?

Originally posted by Rasputin00 on 12-22-1999 10:58 AM
As I said place your faith where you want, but regardless of what BOTH sides say, neither side has proof of the beginnings, so it is just Faith, a belief system, not science.

If the Creationists are wrong they will be laughed at all their life, if the evolutionists are wrong ...

Again, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. The Big Bang can be totally wrong and will not affect evolution one whit.

Originally posted by Bblue on 12-22-1999 02:34 PM
My only post in this topic, and my last...

The only narrow 'fundamentalist' minds I've seen in this forurm are trying to speak from a 'science' veiw point! These are the people who haven't taken the time to thourghly think this thru for themselves.. rather they are preaching that they have been taught instead of think on it themselves!


Science is based on logic:
Assumption: An all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s) creates a universe. Said deity(s) desires to make it look as if said universe is 'old' according to the 'natural laws' of that universe, said deity(s) don't want presense obvious.
Reasons: Unknown, no refrence frame for all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s)
Conclusion: universe looks 'old' and no scientific presense of aforementioned diety(s) discoverable (it's part of that all-powerful, omnipotent thing)

Science can NEVER PROVE or DISPROVE the 'reality' of an all-powerful diety(s); if that diety(s) exsists and if that diety(s) does not wish it's presence known. The whole damn arguement is moot! It is a question of faith.

That's a common error exploited by Christian fundamentalists. In science, if you cannot supply enough evidence for something, then that something doesn't exist, as far as science is cocerned. The burden of proof must lie with the persons who make assertions, not their opponents.

Suppose I tell you that you are always followed by an invisible flying dog. Can you disprove me? Does that mean I am right? What if I tell you that you don't exist?

[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited December 24, 1999).]
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited December 24, 1999).]

[Bearcat]

All rihgt I'm a Christian. I've been taught to belive in God and creationism. People belive that our world is millions of years old. We believei t's only about 7,000 years old.

You think we evolved from monkeys and muck. We believe that a powerful, kind, and loving God created us in his image. In response to the earthbeing hypothesis Adam means something like "red ground". That's because God created humanity out of the dust of the Earth.

And yes God has always been here. I suppose you can trash whatever I say by caling me a weak minded fool, or a close minded idiot, or a rigid fundamentalist dolt. But I ask you science people this. Who created the laws of science ?

[Bkeela]

Well Tree, interesting topic. I myself will not buy the evolution game because of my beliefs.
I am so fed up with the ungodly rubbish that is flooding the American consumer markets, and over-flowing into my own nation of Australia. Whether it be Satanic rock music like Nine Inch Nails or Marilyn Manson, or computer games such as the popular shoot-em up titles or the occultist Pokemon craze.
Playing Castle Wolfenstien years ago, one could never have imagined the realism and violence its later predecessors have now achieved. Such games develop slowly, so when the full obscene horror of these perverse games are fully realized, our children are already desensitized. To think our children find enjoyment blowing away deformed mutants and monsters makes my blood chill.
As for the Sid Meier evolution game, I will certainly not invest my money unto the very companies who are so callously pumping these deranged, and or Atheistic games to our innocent and impressionable children. Although I'm not a rigid Creationist, I am certainly opposed to the philosophical ideas that arose from Darwins controversial theory of evolution, especially where these ideas found horrifying application in recent history. The holocaust is the most extreme example, but even in Australia these trends found root; most infamously through the white Australia policy, and the general misery our native Aboriginal populace have suffered over the years. I'm not saying the evolution theory created racial hatred, but it certainly justified it.
A game about dinosaurs and lush tropical jungles sounds very enticing at first, but it is the deeper message this game will promote, and the inherent dangers that lie in this doctrine that trouble my conscience.
I encourage all deep thinking Christians to contemplate these implications. Sure, playing this game may be an innocent diversion, but who knows what other more sinister projects our hard earned cash is funding?
Join me in taking a stand against godless corporations such as Firaxis, who don't even care about delivering high quality releases, as the recent Alien Crossfire expansion pack well demonstrates.
At the very least I hope people learn greater consumer awareness and caution. It is us, the buying public, who shape the market, thus we have a duty to not only protect our own families from this corporate menace, but to protect the wider community also.

yours sincerely,

Bkeela.

[Monkey]

Sheesh if you want to put it that way, you might as well boycott every new game that gets released. Yes let's ban the ultima games for their religious and satanic symbolism, let's burn copies of SMAC for their portrayal of Sister Miriam, hey... while we're at it how about we have a petition to shut down Activision and Ensemble Studios because of their portrayal of the cleric and the monk respectively. Give it a rest, at the end of the day dinosaurs will just be a game. Whether it is harmful or not, that's up to your own personal beliefs, don't speak for anyone else. If you can't handle it just close your eyes or something... or just don't buy it...simple as that.