PS: Use adf.ly so you can get some money! =D
Quote from rlm850
Okay, I'm not quite sure this is going to be your normal typical map thread, minecraft thread, or anything of the sort, but quite frankly I'm annoyed whenever I find a good working flatmap, that ends up snowing when I'm sitting in it for 10 ****ing hours and ends up covering everything.
So.. here's my proposal.
All I want, is a simple, large flatmap (can be 1000x1000 or even larger if you want to waste some more time. lol) with NO SNOW. preferably, if possible, not another world behind the cobblestone wall after 10,000 blocks... that was weird. possible a cobblestone floor on the bottom and dirt on the top (that I can actually dig into)
If you can do that, I will donate $5 via paypal to you.
Even further, I have this for you.
If this map is perfect the first time, and nothing needs to be changed so I can just get right to building, I will donate an additional $5 to you, totalling $10.
Sorry if I'm at any wrong by posting a thread like this, but I am DYING here.
Yes, dying. ...mentally anyway.
For those of you that are going to tell me to "go use mcedit fool", yeah, no thanks, I tried that to no avail.
For those of you that are going to tell me to "nbtedit removes snow download it", yeah, why don't you use it and tell me what you accomplish for removing snow on the map "Flatgrass"?
Oh also.. we would probably have a hassle somehow of knowing if we're pulling one anothers legs. So if you don't trust the guy with one post offering a donation, simply put the map on your server and PM me the IP so I can sit my ass in it and make sure it doesn't snow. :huh.gif:
Quote from bmwplz
i was reading this and an idea just popped into my head, what if you dig and place your water source 1 under and 1 beside the pool, this way its covered, but it will still flow out the side and down into the pool?
Why? Anything you post will be mocked by anyone who understands rationality or logic.
There is no evidence to support Creationism. If there was, then it would be considered to be more scientifically sound by the science community. In fact, if there was evidence to support it... I bet it'd be all over the news, everywhere.
But if you can manage to find some hidden piece of knowledge that is logically sound, without leaving out obvious facts, then you're welcome to post it. I'd love to read something that makes me question the nature of human evolution....
But looking at your previous sources, which have intentionally left out information because it wasn't consistent with their theories... I doubt that will be the case.
If Creationism is correct, God created all animals in their present form. Exact same likelihood of genetic errors. Your argument is invalid.
If Evolution is correct, I'm not even going to try and explain. Point is, there were exactly the same amount of harmful mutations back then, if not more. Your argument is invalid.
It's almost like you actively try to misunderstand Evolution..
Quote from Metadigital »ElectrocutionCreeper, I've got a challenge for you.
Make an argument that doesn't come directly from Answers in Genesis or its sister site Creation wiki. See if you can use any other source to back up your arguments. Any. At all.
That's actually very important intellectually. You know, having more than 2 (linked) sources of information.
Quote from ElectrocutionCreeper »Please don't quote HUGE posts
Consanguinity - Two of every kind in the ark, huh? So you have like two dinosaurs, eh?
They do their thing, then their kids MUST have sex with each other in order to have a growing population. These kids would probably have huge genetic issues, causing a shitload of problems. And don't even get me started on sexual attraction...
A world wide flood would leave massive amounts of geological evidence behind; and it just doesn't exist
Explains why other cultures, such as the Egyptians, didn't note the flood in their historical records.
Oh, I particularly like this part:
IF you present any real evidence, I will respond further. If not, bye.
Besides the fact that I think it's ******** that you managed to manually copy word-for-word a passage that appears in 'a book' without a single typo or discrepancy of any kind, you're entirely missing the point. Typing it out by hand doesn't mean it's not plagiarized and it doesn't make you any less of a dishonest tool for doing it.
[url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2.html]Wrong[/url]. This is also completely irrelevant to the point I was making. My point was that we expect all extant organisms to show some degree of complexity. You then tell me I'm wrong because...horse evolution?
1. The fossil record does not show a gradual, linear progression from Hyracotherium (Eohippus) to Equus.
Nor is there any reason to think it should. The fossil record of equids shows that various lineages split into several branches. Evolution was not smooth and gradual; traits evolved at different rates and occasionally reversed. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly. All of this is in accord with the messiness we expect from evolution and from biology in general.[/url]
2. Some creationists consider all the species in the horse family to be the same "kind." They accept "microevolution" from Hyracotheriumat the time of the Flood, to modern horses and donkeys first recorded less than four hundred years later (Wood and Cavanaugh 2003). This rate of change is far greater than biologists accept.
Yes, it "used to be" popular, that's why I said that it was replaced...because it wasn't a good model of reality. Kind of like how the Bohr model of the atom was replaced with results from quantum mechanics. Don't tell me to "learn my biology" when you're the one trying to use an out-of-date classification system.
Oh boy, now I have to debunk not only your post, but two more articles as well. Hopefully I can distill the articles down each to a relevant thesis and just debunk that.
In the middle 1800s, some scientists believed that variations caused by the environment could be inherited. Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another. He thus explained the origin of the giraffe’s long neck in part through ‘the inherited effects of the increased use of parts’.1 In seasons of limited food supply, Darwin reasoned, giraffes would stretch their necks for the high leaves, supposedly resulting in longer necks being passed on to their offspring.
This is a flat-out lie, Darwin never said that.
Later in the first article:
But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.
Recombination isn't the only genetic operator and it *can* produce novel functions because there's more to genetics than a gene simply being present. There's also the complicated issue of gene regulation which can shut individual genes on and off. This argument also ignores the fact that recombination can produce an organism with a combination of genes that had only previously existed in two separate populations.
Just to put to rest this "created kind" ********: [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html[/url]
1. What is a "kind"? Creationists have identified kinds with everything from species to entire kingdoms. By the narrower definitions, variation to new kinds has occurred. By the broader definitions, we would not expect to see it in historical time.
2. Helacyton gartleri shows one example of change that would be hard to call anything other than a change in kind. It is an amoeba-like life form that came from a human; evolved from a carcinoma, it spreads by taking over other laboratory cell cultures.
3. Creationists have never hinted at, much less shown, any mechanism that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past.
\Oh, wow, this is short and stupid and entirely addressed by this article: [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC052.html]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC052.html[/url]
1. How similar the Laetoli footprints look to australopithecine feet is a matter of debate. Tuttle (1990) thought that they were too humanlike for Australopithecus afarensis and may have belonged to another species of australopithecine or to an early Homo species. Other anthropologists think they are significantly different from Homo and could be A. afarensis. Creationists tend to cite only Tuttle because he best supports their view.
The importance of the fossil footprints at Laetoli cannot be overstated. They demonstrate incontrovertibly that 3.6 million years ago, early humans were bipedal (walking upright on two legs). Their big toes hardly diverged from the rest of the foot, this can be seen in the photograph at the top right of the imprint. In comparison, a chimpanzee has a highly diverged big toe, and is able to use it like a thumb. Additionally, it is pssoible [sic] to tell that the gait of these early humans was "heel-strike" (the heel of the foot hit first) followed by "toe-off" (the toes push off at the end of the stride); the way modern humans walk. Thus, bipedality was essentially developed by this time.
[url=http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/laetoli.htm]Human Ancestors Hall: The Laetoli Footprints[/url]
Stepping into the next linked article:
In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million year’s worth of depositions.
Yes, so what? No one claimed that sediments are there from the beginning of time. Hell, multicellular life has only existed for the last billion years and simple life that was enough to leave readily detectable fossils in sediment layers has been around for...drum roll please...600 million years. The fact that it doesn't go back to the beginning of time has nothing to do with what observations we can get out of what is there.
It has been claimed that the geological column as a faunel succession is not just a hypothetical concept, but a reality, because all Phanerozoic systems exist superposed at a number of locations on the earth. Close examination reveals, however, that even at locations where all ten systems are superposed, the column, as represented by sedimentary-thickness, is mostly missing. In fact, the thickest local accumulation of rock is only a tiny fraction of the inferred 600-million year’s worth of depositions. The global ‘stack’ of index fossils exists nowhere on earth, and most index fossils do not usually overlie each other at the same locality. So, even in those places where all Phanerozoic systems have been assigned, the column is still hypothetical. Locally, many of the systems have not been assigned by the index fossils contained in the strata but by indirect methods that take the column for granted — clearly circular reasoning. Thus the geologic column does not exist and so does not need to be explained by Flood geology. Only each local succession requires an explanation and Flood geology is wholly adequate for this task.
These should address the fundamental problems with the rest of the article:
A platypus tooth has been found in the Palaeocene of Argentina, so Michael Benton suggests in Vertebrate Palaeontology that monotremes arose in Australia in the Late Jurassic or Early Cretaceous, and that some subsequently migrated across Antarctica to reach South America, both of which were still united with Australia at that time. However, a number of genetic studies suggest a much earlier origin in the Triassic.
What part of "they've been around for a long time" and "the Earth is mostly covered in water" do you not understand? Not to mention that sedimentary layers (where fossils are found) are layers that were deposited by ****ing water.
Except I'm not the one providing the picture of creationism, you are. I have only argued against things that you have said. I'm not making any statements about what you believe, I'm only telling you that it's wrong and showing you why. Though I question your ability to even understand what's going on based on some of the non-sequitur ******** you've tried to pull.
No, it's a picture of what looks like a fossil of a fish swallowing a fish. What it probably is is fake. Seriously, it looks like it was stamped into stucco. Now if you want real fossils of fish eating fish:
You know that you can't rebut a rebuttal of an argument that the rebuttal rebutted, right? That's what makes it a rebuttal.