The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
I must admit I do find it amusing that so many 'scientists' (actually not real scientists) believe in evolution but then claim that having belief in a supernatural being is silly.
I must admit I do find it amusing that so many 'scientists' (actually not real scientists) believe in the existence of atoms but then claim that having belief in evolution is silly.
Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I must admit I do find it amusing that so many 'scientists' (actually not real scientists) believe in the existence of atoms but then claim that having belief in evolution is silly.
I suspect you will find that 99% of scientists do believe in evolution - even real ones.
FACT: The human population growth rate cannot be expressed in any mathmatical form. You can "predict" future population based on current numbers, but you cannot look more than about 2,500 years ago and have ANY concrete #'s on which to base a mathmatical formula. WE simply have no idea what the population growth was before 500BC.
We can look at fossils and artifacts, but we cannot possibly hope to understand the WORLD WIDE population of humans before 500BC. So ANY math that you try to use is based on numbers that somone is pulling out of their ass.
I, for one, don't care about the source of Faded Glory's information. Whatever/whoever the source is, is simply ignorant and stupid.
I don't know if man was created or evolved from apes, but we sure don't have more than 6 billion people on the earth these days. If your mathmaticians predict there should be more than that, then it is their assumtions that are incorrect. Not the theory of evolution! What the hell are you talking about population being a disprover of evolution. It makes NO SENSE at all!
"Dog of a Saxon! Take thy lance, and prepare for the death thou hast drawn upon thee!" -Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert in novel 'Ivanhoe'
PR:
"doesn't change the point that evolution cannot be proved."
Neither can gravity, or relativity, or any other theory you care to mention...they can however be shown to fit the data, and as more data comes in that doesn't contradict the theory then the stronger the theory is. If something comes in that doesn't fit then the data is looked at again and the theory has to be re-evaluated...
Evolution though Natural Selection has been shot at for 150 years and no data has come up to show it to be false...that makes a very strong theory, which is why the rather feeble attacks on it by creationists and the like are generally laughed off.
semantics...
doesn't change the point that evolution cannot be proved.
At least we agnostics and atheists have a theory instead of assumptions. This theory is purported by observations. Microevolution is proven, and it is a element of evolution itself.
For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)
Microevolution is proven, and it is a element of evolution itself.
Yes, microevolution (adaptation) is observable, but there is NO evidence that this leads to macroevolution nor are there any transitional fossil records to support a macroevolutionist view.
Are you ready for the tomorrow that will never come? We will all have one.
Yes, microevolution (adaptation) is observable, but there is NO evidence that this leads to macroevolution nor are there any transitional fossil records to support a macroevolutionist view.
Are you out of your mind? There are records to show macroevolution. It is a theory that is proven. Creation is long dead and has been proven wrong.
For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)
Originally posted by Giancarlo
At least we agnostics and atheists have a theory instead of assumptions.
Why 'agnostics and atheists'? Many Christians believe in evolution too.
Evolution itself contains many assumptions too....
This theory is purported by observations.
That doesn't make it right. I have seen lots of really beautiful and predictive theories that have been disproven.
In scientific practice one generally makes predictions based apon the theory and then investigates to see if they are correct or not. If they are correct, your confidence in the theory increases - if they are wrong you throw the theory away.
Now evolution by natural selection is actually rather hard to test in this way since it is usually built around facts which are already known. However there are still some new 'results' coming in which increase our confidence in it. Compared to the evidence for theoies in other fields (which are often subsequently proven wrong) I would not say that the evidence for evolution by natural selection is exceptionally strong. I personally hold the opinion that it will be wrong, but only in minor details and the actually mechanism will be some form of evolution, but possibly not even via natural selection.
The reason why creation is not a pleasing scientific theory is not that it can be proven wrong. Quite the contrary - the displeasing thing is that it cannot be proven wrong, because it has no predictive power. Being scientifically displeasing however, doesn't mean that it isn't right (although I personally don't think it is).
Originally posted by aaglo
By the way, Mr. Faded Glory:
You happen to live in Kansas by any chance? For what I've heard their education emphasis currently SUCKS BIG TIME! A few years ago the state of Kansas eliminated Darwin from their curricula altogether. And the state won an AIR-award that year for this dropping...
Tweet
Comment