• 0

    posted a message on MAtmos - Environmental sound atmosphere simulator
    Here is a banner I made so I could support you, because your mod is EPIC!


    PS: Use adf.ly so you can get some money! =D
    Posted in: Minecraft Mods
  • 0

    posted a message on [1.5_01]Star Wars Mod[0.04.1]LEGAL UPDATE: Please Read OP[WIP]
    EDIT: Ignore da post

    Posted in: Minecraft Mods
  • 0

    posted a message on [Req] Full Flat Map (donation will accompany)
    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:

    SO you want cobblestone instead of bedrock?
    Posted in: Maps
  • 0

    posted a message on [ORIGINAL BANNER SHOP] EP's Banner Shop
    I would be willing to help create banners:
    My Art

    Making my own shop proved to be too much of a work burden... :Skeleton:

    EDIT: Look at my post count... :biggrin.gif:
    Posted in: Mods Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Pass It On - Minehattan !
    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?

    Can you guys not use 1.6 items? Because I haven't up-dated, and would still like to use the map.
    Posted in: Maps
  • 0

    posted a message on Pass It On - Minehattan !
    And the crowd goes WILD!
    Posted in: Maps
  • 0

    posted a message on Pass It On - Minehattan !

    I need tot go to bed and such, ill take it later.
    Posted in: Maps
  • 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    Sorry sorry, I am writing a larger page, but am also going on a hike at http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=36.774092,-84.476624&spn=0.855791,1.18103&t=h&z=9 over the weekend. I promise I will have it done Monday or Tuesday.

    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.

    I wonder if you can even read, because it seems you ignored all of my posts regarding evidence for creationism. I am really sorry if you don't want to see the evidence, because its like your sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling.

    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..

    In every generation of animals there are a certain amount of genetic errors that take place, slowly degrading the DNA over time. During and after the flood there weren't any genetic problems because only a small amount of generations happened. (In case you haven't seen it, click here)

    Why are you trying to misunderstand creationism?

    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Pass It On- Giant Fortress
    I am sorry about the save I posted... I can fix it again and make a better castle if you want... >.>

    But seriously, don't bump so much. If people want want to do your pass it on, I m sorry.
    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on Pass It On- Giant Fortress

    I made this before you said you couldn't hack anything.... sooo.... HAVE FUN WITH IT! =D * cough*
    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on Pass It On- Giant Fortress
    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on 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.

    Its been busy for me that past few days, Ill make a response to this soon.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    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?

    Yes, there was a male and female of each "unclean" created kind. There was 7 of each "clean" created kind. According to the bible, clean mammals chew the cud and have a split hoof (Deer, cow, but not lion). Clean birds are birds that are not predators (Chicken, cardinal, but not vulture). Clean aquatic animals must have scales and fins (Salmon, carp, but not shrimp).

    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...

    The genetic issues shouldn't of been too much of a problem, because that was early in the history of the world, and there should not of been too many genetic mutations present in the DNA of those animals.

    Early on in the web page, they state this:
    A world wide flood would leave massive amounts of geological evidence behind; and it just doesn't exist

    This is a lie, or he just doesn't know what he is talking about. Here are several links to archives that present large amount of evidence to the flood:


    Even later in the webpage, under the topic "Global or Local":
    Explains why other cultures, such as the Egyptians, didn't note the flood in their historical records.

    This is just plain foolish. If they studied the bible at all they would know that is specifically states that only Noah's family survived, and his three sons repopulated the earth. Egypt didn't even exist until long after the flood.

    Follow this link and scroll to the selection labeled "Does the Bible really claim that Noah’s Flood was global? How do creationists answer critics who claim that the biblical account of Noah’s Flood was merely localized, not worldwide?": http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/flood

    I find the epicidiot website particularly foolish in many ways. just go to the links I presented you to answer all your flood questions.

    The first question the talk origins page makes is this one:
    1. Building the Ark
    Its conclusion is that it would of been impossible to build an ark three hundred cubits (About 135m meters) long.

    I am guessing that in that question they are referring to this kind of wood boat: Because this boat would be very structurally unstable if ti was 135 meters long.

    Todays creationists believe that that ark looks more like this (Which is 100% stable):

    Look here for more info on what the ark might of looked like: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/thinking-outside-the-box

    EDIT: Forgot to respond to the other questions, Ill do that tomorrow... Its late here. =D

    Oh, I particularly like this part:

    Some problems with these numbers:

    1: These numbers don't include the water volume in the atmosphere.

    2: The numbers assume that mount everest existed before the flood (plate tectonics research show that it was made during the flood).

    Also: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/flood-waters.asp

    IF you present any real evidence, I will respond further. If not, bye.

    Thank you so much for not throwing as many insults as possible at me.(Like some of you have been doing)


    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • 0

    posted a message on Does anyone vent or skype for this game?
    Quote from Tentoshii »
    Quote from Nanophreak »
    I was once on a server that used Mumble.

    "Mumble" ?

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on Evolution
    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.

    1: The exact book is called “Exploring Creation with Biology”
    2: I said I forgot to write down the source and It will not happen again.

    [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?

    Response to [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2[/url]:

    1. The fossil record does not show a gradual, linear progression from Hyracotherium (Eohippus) to Equus.

    Talk.Origins is admitting that the claim is 100% correct on this point, yet it can't seem to bring itself to acknowledge the fact.

    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]

    Demonstrating a gradual, linear progression is needed to show common ancestry. If all you have are the disjointed "branches" of the fossil record then it only shows a lineage if one assumes a common ancestor to begin with. That's the key, you evolutionists assume a common ancestor and are just trying to find the relationships they already assume exist. But an explanation based on the assumption of evolution cannot be used to demonstrate evolution. Creationists, on the other hand, do not assume a relationship but are trying to see if one even exists.

    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.

    1. Most creationists see the so-called horse family as consisting of at least three different created kinds so this point would be irrelevant to most creationists.

    2. Talk.Origins' analysis of Wood and Cavanaugh is flawed. They speak of "biological trajectories", not ancestry. The theory is that these "biological trajectories" are a relationship, not a lineage. So while in Wood and Cavanaugh's model Hyracotherium and horses would have had common ancestors that came off the ark, horses would not have evolved from Hyracotherium.

    3. Creationists accept rapid change and speciation, but not the evolutionary hypothesis that requires the addition of new genetic information by chance, as goo-to-you evolution requires. Variation and speciation that is the result of a sorting or loss of genetic information can occur quite rapidly.

    4. Talk.Origins is committing the fallacy of contrasting "biologists" with "creationists", despite the fact that some biologists are creationists and some creationists are biologists.

    [url=http://creationwiki.org/Horse_fossils_don%27t_show_evolution]Main Article[/url]

    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.

    No, not kind of like “how the Bohr model of the atom was replaced with results from quantum mechanics”. More like “instead of listing the ingredients of a pizza all together, you decide you will list the different cheeses required in one area, the dough in another, and finally the toppings in the last one. You cannot compare the Bohr model with the way animals are classified.

    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.

    First article:

    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.

    See that little “1” next to Darwin’s quote? Amazingly, if you would have clicked it, it would show you that It was quoted from Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th Edition

    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.

    In the end, DNA still never gains “new” data. Also, two separate populations can only interbreed if their DNA is very similar, so that doesn’t really make a difference after all.

    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]

    Response to [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.

    This claim is simply a statement of concept. It is simply saying that the degree of variation that is observed is limited to variation within[url=http://creationwiki.org/Created_kinds]created kinds[/url]

    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.

    These in no way qualify as a new kind of orgaism, nor are HeLa cells "a wild unicellular life form." HeLa cells have been artificially kept alive for years in lab cultures. They are still human cells, but because of their disease, scientists have been able to keep them living in lab 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.

    Wrong! Creationists have long held that, because of the laws of thermodynamics and the principles of information theory, the variations with in Created kinds can only go downward, not upward. That is, the increased variation results in a loss of information within each group, so that each new group is generally weaker and less fit than its ancestors.

    So Creationists do identify mechanisms that limit variation. These are increased entropy, and increased genetic noise.

    [url=http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Range_of_variation_is_limited_within_kinds]Main Article[/url]

    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]

    Response to [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.

    Tuttle indicated that the prints are so human that they would have been classified as Homo sapiens if they had been dated as younger. But he is not the only source that shows just how human these prints are. The Smithsonian Institution provides additional support for the human-like nature of these prints:

    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]

    Even though they go on to attribute the prints to Australopithecus afarensis, their description shows just how human the tracks are. Furthermore, based on the Laetoli footprints, Australopithecus afarensis was often depicted with human-like feet.

    It is interesting to note which side has the most to lose if their interpretation of the Laetoli footprints is wrong. If the Laetoli footprints are shown to be compatible with afarensis's ape-like foot, it is no problem for Creation Science since both humans and afarensis are thought to have lived together. If however the prints are human, evolutionists would have human beings 3.6 million years old, which would devastate their "family" tree.
    Thanks to the fossil called "Little Foot" (fossil Stw 573) we now know that the joints of afarensis's foot bones showed the flexibility that suggests it was capable of grasping limbs, like chimpanzees do, and totally unlike a human foot. As a result, evolutionists now claim that the prints are compatible with an ape-like foot. While it has been shown that a chimpanzee makes a print with its big toe aligned with the others, it does not seem to do it in a manner or with a consistency that would allow afarensis's ape-like foot to have made the Laetoli footprints.
    R.J. Clarke has stated that a newer set of prints were definitely ape-like, but there is a gap in the tracks which could suggest that the human and ape-like prints were made by different individuals. More research is needed on this.

    [url=http://creationwiki.org/Laetoli_footprints_were_human]Main Article[/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.

    You took that quote out of context.
    Here is the full quote for you:

    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:


    Please read these links thoroughly:

    [url=http://creationwiki.org/Entire_geological_column_doesn%27t_exist]Response to claim CD101[/url]
    [url=http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column_is_sometimes_out_of_order]Response to claim CD102[/url]

    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.[33] However, a number of genetic studies suggest a much earlier origin in the Triassic.[27]

    This is just a fantasy idea that someone thought up to try and explain the tooth. This is a baseless claim because there is no evidence that backs this up.

    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.

    For once I agree with you (partly). The earth was covered in water at one time, it was the global flood. Here is an archive for evidence that supports the global flood, and debunks the idea that most, if not all layers of rock where laid down slowly.


    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.

    Except I'm not the one providing the picture of evloution, 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.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html Nope.

    Haha, if you just spend some time reading [url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/flood]this[/url] or [url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/noahs-ark]this[/url] you would know that most, if not all, the arguments on that talk.Orgins page are null.

    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:

    Haha, according to you, all the fish you linked to “looks like it was stamped into stucco.” That fossil is 100% real.
    And, no, burial need not be rapid, it could just be that the big fish choked on the little fish and died with the little fish in its mouth.

    “New experimental evidence on the faeces of modern fish show that faeces must be buried in less than 24 hours if they are to be preserved as coprolites in the fossil record.”

    You know that you can't rebut a rebuttal of an argument that the rebuttal rebutted, right? That's what makes it a rebuttal.

    I can rebut something that claims to be a rebuttal of an argument, but is actually a faulty excuse to explain away something.

    Anyways, I am just going to ignore all your attempted and rude insults. Is is simply not smart, or gentleman-like to be so rude.


    PS: [url=http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/bible]This[/url] Is for all those people that think the bible is a fairy tale.
    Posted in: General Off Topic
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.