Alright, so there's this idea I've been working on for the past few weeks. You heard me, weeks. Basically, it's boats. Boats than you can make bigger, slap a name on, armor, choose what propulsion system it has, and carry stuff in.
Full idea in spoiler:
Okay guys. Just a slight disclaimer, the explanation for this idea is going to be *HUGE*. The idea itself may be simpler, but the description will take a long time to explain. In a nutshell, it's bigger boats that are also modular.
So we'll start with a slight modification of a game mechanic. Otherwise, the idea won't work very well. So just keep in mind that in this idea, you can't push a boat around by standing on top of it. At least just for the higher-level classes, which we'll get to in a minute.
Also, upon entering a boat, a GUI will appear somewhere around the bottom-right or so that displays the ships 'health', and speed.

Before we go overboard (no pun intended), let's begin with some basic principles that can be applied to the current boat. Let's call it the Dinghy. You can't do too terribly much with the Dinghy, but you CAN do some things.
Dinghies can be crafted just like they normally are. However to modify a boat, a new tool will have to be brought into the game. Let's say it's a Hammer. Right-clicking on a boat with a hammer, granted you're the one that built it will open up a GUI.

Like I said before the abilities with the Dinghy are limited, so you have limited things that pop up in the GUI. All that displays for now is the hull, propulsion system, and their respective health bars. You can also give your boat its own custom name that appears on its hull (But this probably won't be for the Dinghy). You will also notice two numbers at the top. On the left (12/12), is the boat's hitpoints. I doubled their damage resistance because I thought it was kind of silly to kill a boat with one arrow. To the right (1) is the ship's base speed attribute. That is to say, the speed capability of a boat, excluding the propulsion system. Boat stats will vary upon each construction. Therefore someone can be proud of themselves if they have made a fast/strong ship.
Normally, you have your standard, nonreinforced plank hull. However, you could change that. Let's start with a Reinforced Wood Hull. In the crafting table, put in 9 pieces of log together to form a piece of Reinforced Wood Plating. Dinghies will probably only need one plate to reinforce themselves. Plating will probably not be stackable for gameplay purposes.
Reinforced wood will provide a higher defense for the dinghy. Two more types of hull include Steel and Gold. Steel Plating requires 4 Iron blocks in the crafting table, and Gold likewise. With a steel-plated hull, the boat can take considerably more damage than Plank or Wood. Steel hulls can possibly withstand lava. Gold plating is only slightly stronger than Reinforced Wood and is not feasible as battle armor. However, just in case you were thinking these hulls are easy to reinforce, keep in mind higher levels will need more plating as they get bigger.

When a boat is damaged, simply right-click with the Hammer to open up the GUI. There should be a slot for extra plating to go in should the ship need repair. To ensure fair fights, the repair will be timed, like a furnace. Each repair uses up the Hammer some. It would also be nice to see some sort of visual cue for an almost-destroyed ship, like fire or a broken, damaged texture.
And now, the propulsion systems.
With the default dinghy, you have your Hands. Hands for a dinghy are basically neutral, however they will be slower than in previous versions of the game.
An alternative solution, is craftable Oars. Oars are very maneuverable and faster than hands, however they do not grant a steady speed and require you to hold down the forward button whenever you want to move. They may even 'tire' you out more (using up more Hunger).

The last one for the Dinghy, is the sail. Sails can provide very fast speeds, however they have low thrust and are not easy to slow down and speed up easily. A steady speed is required for traversing around land-covered areas. Sails can also possibly be made with different colored wool, to help a boat stand out. Sails grant a steady speed as you can leave them unattended with very little deceleration.

So now we move on to a bigger boat. Not too terribly big, but we're getting there.
To construct larger ships and propulsion systems, you're going to need an alternative to the crafting table. Let's just call it the Shipwright. This block ONLY crafts boats and takes up more blocks of space.

I think for a new level of boat, you're going to need some Blueprints. Blueprints can most likely be created by interacting with the Shipwright by combining a blueprint (Or in this case, a solid Dinghy) and investing your Experience Points to come up with a new 'idea' for a bigger boat. The 'studying' is timed, again, like a furnace, and with each clump of EP filled, the progress bar is filled some. You can also find Blueprints in dungeons, but only rarely.
After that will be done, the Blueprints can be put in a separate slot, with another slot under it. The slot under it is for the wood required to build the boat. Every time you put more wood into the slot under it, the progress bar for the ship increases. I'm not sure if this should be the way but it sounds pretty good.
I think that for each class of boat, a bigger mast will need to be crafted. That, or just have one single mast that, for bigger boats, you need to pack in more Sails. Kind of like how plating works.

So now, the next level: the Skiff.
The skiff is *about* 2 1/2 times the length of the Dinghy. However, with the next level comes new features. First off is a second slot, a passenger seat if you will. But besides that, there are two more features.

Here, there will be special lots to place blocks at. These could be something decorative like gold blocks, or practical, like chests.

To place a block in there, logically you would right click on that one place with the block. It's possible the block lot will be highlighted by the Hammer to show you where you can place things. To get it out, leftclick with the Hammer and it will appear in your inventory. If blocks aren't your fancy, perhaps animals are. Here is where the extra space in the GUI comes in. There would be a list of all the entities in the boat. If they are NPCs, you can choose to move them to another slot, or evict them. You can also evict players,

With the Skiff, you have an additional propulsion system. I'm not sure about this one so I'm going to need you guys' approval. Essentially, it is a steam-powered paddlewheel. The steam engine will need to be powered by coal, which will either have a furnace-like GUI or not. It is also be slightly less maneuverable than the Sail. The steam engine, like Sails, grant a steady speed and can be left unattended. They have perfect acceleration, however they are much slower than Sails.

For armoring, the Skiff will need more plates to sufficiently armor the boat. Possibly two or three.
The skiff will most likely be the largest boat to successfully navigate shallow marshlands and the like.

Now, for the adventurous sailor, we're going to go one step up. Meet the Cog. The Cog is a fair-sized boat, but it is hardly big. What is does have though is a top deck large enough to walk upon. Now, we're going to introduce another feature. This time, the Cog will have a lower deck. You could be able to place a few blocks in that bottom deck, such as beds and chests. This will be good for long adventures. If you aren't spoiled, you would be happy with a Cog for your adventuring needs. Hands are now unusable.
For gameplay, an invisible, penetrable box will be in the interiors of the ship that hides water and its effects when water blocks go near it, but as soon as they leave the water blocks return to normal.

Now here, starting with the Cog, is the boat's main means of offense and defense. You guessed it, the Cannon. I believe the cannon could be made with a crafting table. To fire (And right now I'm making most of this up as I go along), you must first craft a Cannonball (Maximum of 16 allowed in hand), and right click on the cannon. The cannon will fizz for about 2.5 seconds or more before firing the cannonball. You must wait an additional second to fire again. To adjust the angle of a cannon, rightclick it (without a cannonball) to point the cannon up or down.

Now with ships and other entities, contact with the cannonball will just equal damage being dealt. But with blocks, there is a chance (Depending on their blast resistance) that the block being hit, and/or the blocks around it will be pushed forward and respond to gravity. And in rare cases, break upon falling.
That, or it would just be a weak form of TNT. But I like the former better. Mostly because it's my idea. Good gosh I think I'm vain or something.

So like I said, if you aren't spoiled, you would be happy with a Cog for your adventuring needs.

But sometimes, you ARE spoiled. Or, just requiring a bit more power. That's where the fourth level comes in, behold: the Carrack. Significantly larger than the other boats, this one can actually be called a ship. It has 3 decks. The first being the top deck (Which comprises of the main deck, quarter and poop, naturally), the second the gun deck, which to the back holds the captain's quarters, and the bottom deck is mainly for cargo. If the Carrack is steampowered the boiler room will be in there.


Oars are now unusable for the Carrack, as are Hands for Cogs. (The Oars for the Cogs would be weaker than on the Skiff and Dinghy, as would hands with the Skiff. However with the Steam engine and Sail, they just get faster with each level, with exceptions [amended])
Another neat thing you get to do with the Carrack is you get to live up to the naval definiton of a ship. On the Carrack, you can place another boat inside it for scouting/lifeboats. But it can only be a Skiff or Dinghy.

Okay, next one. Here we go.

(This level is optional. You guys tell me if it should be ingame.)
Now sometimes, your lust for power is so great no measly Carrack can hold it; not even when it is steel-hulled and armed to the teeth. No, you wish for the very seas to obey your will. Well, you psychopath, here's the fix for you: Feast your eyes sir, on the Galleon. Over twice the size of a Carrack, four long decks and plenty of guns, you would not want to war with this vessel. It is essentially a Carrack on steroids; bigger, stronger (but not faster [amended]), and scarier. But, slightly slower. Should you decide to armor it, keep in mind it will need 8 Platings to armor (Maybe more). And considering each plating requires 4 blocks to fill, you're going to need a LOT of iron.

When a ship finally loses all of it's 'health', it will sink to the bottom of the sea. Here, it is subject to despawn, but will stay there as long as there is a player near it. Although dangerous, it would then be available for looting, if you haven't plundered the ship while it was afloat already. < --- This entire paragraph is subject to discussion and alternative options. It's also been proposed that the ship turn into it's block counterpart, only leave chests, or like in the Amendment Posts, leaves a Ship's Bell that can serve as a savegame for your ship.
Now, I understand that such a feature is going to be *HUGE*, possibly requiring its own update, and would be just a massive undertaking. But I for one believe it will be an undertaking worth the effort. It would heighten the spirit of Minecraft adventure and exploration, people could trade vast amounts of resources over long distances, and plunder other ships for their booty. So I'm not 100% expecting this to be accepted entirely (But if it is, thankyouthankyouthankyou!), but in the future if any modders were curious about how to go about doing their ship mod, this could be a good example. But I really hope this would at least be seen by Mojang. Just two-thirds into completing this idea, I read an old tweet of Notch saying that he might add something like this in the future. So, if you are, this could be one of the ways to go about it.
Any questions?
Amendment Post 1:
- In the Shipwright GUI, the product slot of the boatbuilding section is now a button. I've updated the image.
- Craftable ship components should have been expanded. In addition to a Galley, an Anchor component (probably most vital) is also one of them. Also proposed by the community are tables, crows' nests (That basket thing on the top of masts), icebreakers, and if the NPC crew idea is implemented, a sea captain's desk to chart courses for the helmsman.
- I actually think you should be able to move players. I mean, if they actually decided to choose to lock themselves in a mob slot rather than move around freely I think the captain should be free to move them wherever.
Amendment Post 2:
- Galleons really shouldn't be the fastest ships out there, it would be unfair. Instead, their base speed capability should be a tiny bit slower than a Carrack, probably. Updated.
- Right clicking on a cannon without a cannonball could point the cannon up/down. Updated.
- Different types of ships that do not follow the linear 5-level path of upgrades. Instead, 'extra' ship blueprints could be found in dungeons in strongholds, but they would be rare. Could be a way to get Caravels and viking ships or whatnot.
- I'm not sure about the decay process of sunken ships. Perhaps after someone leaves the ship's general area, a timer starts and eventually the ship will despawn. Or maybe it just stays there forever but can be 'mined' away to recollect valuable materials.
Amendment Post 3 (Note: These are not as important as the first 2) :
- Flags. Although I'm sure colored sails can do a good job of faction identification, custom-made flags would be really great to have. They could be used outside of boats, too.
- Extra ammo types. The standard cannonball would be made of stone and gunpowder, but others could be made out of iron and other materials. The new usable fireball coming 1.2 would also make a neat incendiary addition. Other types can inclde grapeshot and chainshot.
- Sea monsters. Pretty straightforward, I'd like to see some minor sea bosses when roaming the sea. But in my opinion, they should be restricted to certain sizes of ships (Dinghies have no bosses). For example the ship the size of a Skiff would probably only get a shark or something, whereas something Cog-sized would get sharks and sea serpents, medium-sized ships like the Carrack would get sea serpents and maybe giant octopus (Will wrap tentacles around the ship and begin to tug down unless tentacles are damaged), etc...They are, however, uncommon.
- A ship's bell. Yes, they can be used as a normal bell, but there's something that makes them special. Once placed on a ship, it bears the ship's name and can ONLY be placed on that ship (e.g Bell of the S.S Whatchamacallit). Then, if a sunken ship despawns, that bell is turned into a block at the bottom of the ocean and contains all of the ship's data. Then, it can be used to recreate the ship.
- Sea obstacles. The ocean would be made that much better if occasionally you stumbled upon a mini-biome within an ocean. These could be mysterious sea rocks, or icebergs made of pack ice where a tundra or arctic biome would usually be.
And the Reddit post is here:
http://www.reddit.co..._modular_boats/ (Archived)
*EDIT*
Due to popular demand, I give you this:
Add this to your signature if you like it!
<a href="../../../topic/699830-boats-evolved-bigger-modular-boats/"><img src="http://i569.photobucket.com/albums/ss136/elitemandalorian48/besig-1.jpg" alt=""></a>
Important Things to Know for the Unfortunate Few Without Common Sense (aka posts I've gotten a million and one times and wish to halt):
- This is NOT A MOD. The illustrations may look convincing (for a bunch of photoshopped models made in Sketchup :p) but I have repeatedly, in this suggestion, mentioned it as an idea and rarely even mentioned the word 'mod'. Please stop asking how to install this. Plus, we're in the Suggestions forum. That tell you anything?
- Yes, I have SEEN the Zeppelin Mod. You're just about the 508th person to show me this. Yes, I've seen it. YES, I think it's a great mod, but in my opinion it's best to leave it at that, and this idea is about the vanilla Minecraft ships made of predefined modules, not blocks, as that seems to be more congruent with the current game mechanics. Saying "There's a mod for that" is a warnable offense, in any case.
- You see that little link up there? Yeah, the idea is in the link (or the spoiler). I've explained rather thoroughly how the boats work. While I would really like it for you to give me your two cents, this thread is not for people to make up entirely their own ideas on how the boats work. That part's already here, mostly
- "This would be great, but the oceans need to be bigger!" <-- Say this and you're gonna get a smack. >=(
Download link to the original SketchUp models: http://www.mediafire...55l1cnm1npgkbgl
458
[size=small]NOTE: Because of the recent influx of posters who have given two sentence posts and haven't even bothered to look at the FAQ, any post that clearly could have been addressed with a trip here will be replied to with a simple "See FAQ #X". I highly encourage you to at least peruse the questions before posting ignorant criticism.[/size]
This is supposed to be Hell, and yet a player with a small stock of arrows can walk freely through the area with barely a care in the world! With iron armor, basically all caution except with lava can be abandoned, because a Ghast would only be able to take you out with two direct hits, and everything else can be ignored! Wither Skeletons would add needed challenge to a dimension that is supposed to be terrifying, and force players to actually be prepared to get their Glowstone and Nether Quartz. With Wither Skeletons moved out, a player that isn't in good armor would need to be fast, and a well prepared player would actually need a variety of equipment like milk buckets or potions. If you really didn't want to fight them, you could always sprint away, which takes a small amount of skill.
But remember, they would only spawn about as commonly as Endermen, so it isn't like you'd be horded like with 3 at once. You would have to fight one, maybe two, unless you actually walked around getting a bunch on your tail. This change would make the Nether much more challenging, but not nearly enough to make it impossible, even in no armor. A veteran could still walk without armor with enough movement skill, while newer players could most likely survive in iron armor, but no less, as they should be able to in the dimension of Hell.
There has been a fair amount of contention about this lately, especially making the beacon too easy to get. I would remind players that the beacon takes a minimum of 81 ores to complete. That's quite the chore - just because you can summon the Wither does not mean it can suddenly immediately get a beacon. Second, this does not make it too easy to get all the skulls to summon the Wither. As I said earlier, it takes an average of 120 Wither Skeleton kills to get all the heads. Unlucky player might need to kill as many as 300 or more. As I've said, they will spawn about as commonly as Endermen. Go out and try to kill 120 Endermen, then try to tell me that the amount of time it took you would make it too easy to get the beacon.
Don't believe on the average of 120 or unlucky players having to kill as many as 300? Have a full-blown statistical analysis based on the normal and geometric cumulative frequency distributions. Happy reading!
But hey, say you don’t believe me. Say you think I got the math wrong, even though this kind of probability is something I learned before statistics even expanded upon it. I built a quick calculator program on my calculator while I was bored in precalculus, then ran it for 999 trials (the max my calculator can take before no longer being able to run analysis). Here’s the coding, so you can be sure I didn’t cheat. It probably won’t make much sense to you, but I’m sure another programmer on the forums can confirm its validity, and I’ll comment it up and add actual names to the variables to make it easier to understand.
You probably didn’t understand that, so I’ll summarize what it does. It simulates the killing of a Wither Skeleton by giving a 1 in 40 chance of a “success”, and repeats that until 3 “successes” are achieved. It then stores the number of Wither Skeletons it took to get these three skulls in another location for further viewing, then runs again. I ran this program 999 times, simulating a random player going to get his three skulls 999 times. Here are my results:
Mean: 119.4544545 (Shocker, only .5 off 120, which is the actual value)
SD(X)=64.86644227 (There’s a decent chance you don’t know what this is, so I’ll explain it later)
Min(X)=9 (In all 999 trials, the smallest number of Wither Skeletons killed to get all three skulls was 9)
Max(X)=390 (In all 999 trials, the largest number of Wither Skeletons killed to get all three skulls was 390)
So the mean was 119.45 Wither Skeleton kills needed. Don’t even try to tell me my math was wrong there now.
But I already knew that. I’m more interested in the standard deviation. Now, the Central Limit Theorem would normally cause the combined results of trials to be normal, especially with a sample size of 999, but unfortunately np = 3, which is less than ten. That means the left side of the normal model will be cut off, causing a right skew. That means the standard deviation isn’t useful for far-reaching calculations, and the SD can’t be calculated by regular methods. But we already have an approximate SD from our trials, so that should be almost dead-on accurate for our purposes, especially since independence is a certainty. So what does a standard deviation of 64.866 mean? Well, it means that when you go one standard deviation out in both directions, you have contained just about 68% of all results. Here’s a little table so you can visual what I mean:
But I said earlier that it can’t work quite as well in this case because np<10. We can still approximate, especially for the smaller sigmas. With a bit of math, we can find out that 1SD above the mean is 184.866, 2SD is 249.733, and 3SD is 314.599. With a bit more math, specifically, finding the area of everything else by taking (1-the other results)/2, we can find out the odds that a player might have to kill a certain number of Wither Skeletons to get his skulls.
Here are the results:
Odds that a player might have to kill above X Wither Skeletons to get all three skulls, according to the slightly-off normal model:
X=184: 16%
X=250: 2.5%
X=315: .15%
So that means 1 in 40 player will have to kill more than 250 Wither Skeletons to get their skulls. 3 in 2000 players (not unlikely at all considering the millions playing Minecraft) will have to kill more than 315, which is absolutely ridiculous. Some will have to kill more. If you’ve followed along with the math up to this point, you can do your own calculations as to how they might stretch out farther, but be warned that the normal model gets more and more inaccurate because np<10 as you go out farther. As I mentioned earlier, these might be a bit off because of the truncated normal model that causes a right skew. You can’t really call me out on that though, because what that would really mean is that for a manually placed normal model extending into the negatives the standard deviation would more than likely be even larger, meaning that unlucky players have to kill even more Wither Skeletons than is mentioned here. This of course means that many lucky players will have to kill somewhere on the range of 60 or less, but unlucky and lucky happen about the same amount of times, and with my way even the unlucky ones will be able to get it eventually with a bit of perseverance, unlike the obsession that would be needed if you wanted to get them just from Fotressses.So yes, some lucky players will be able to get enough materials to summon the Wither within an hour or so – it is really the same now. But do not even try to tell me any longer that needing to kill 120 is an extreme. It is the average, and needing to kill even half that would only happen to less than 1 in 5 players.
But let’s take a different approach, because I’m spending a lot of time applying what I learned in Statistics, and this is kind of fun. The Geometric model is even better for our purposes than the normal model, and even easier to use. It gives us a different perspective on how crappy the current system is as well.
So, if you have a TI graphing calculator, you can follow along. Hit 2nd Vars, then go to the very bottom, where it says geometcdf(. That is the geometric cumulative distribution frequency, which you probably don’t understand. What is does is calculates the chance of an occurrence happening by the time a certain number of trials have gone by. So click it, then type in into the parentheses .025,120).That spits out .952075909, right? What that number means is that there is a 95.2% chance of getting at least one skull by 120 trials (note the at least). While that seems decent, that leaves us 4.8% of people, after having killed 120 Wither Skeletons, wondering if the info they got off the wiki on drop rates was wrong. You can plug in other values instead of 120 to see the chances a person will have received a Wither Skeleton Skull by the time they have killed that many Wither Skeletons.
But let’s remember that I’m not even suggesting a change of drop rate – I’m just suggesting that they are a bit easier to find, by moving them out of Nether Fotresses. Which means all this still applies even after my idea comes into play – all it means is that they will be easier to find, so you will be able to rack up these ridiculous amounts of kills.
PLEASE LEAVE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM, SUPPORT, AND IDEAS!
Robe's Art has made an awesome banner for this idea. If you like this idea and want to help support it, just copy the code below into your signature, then highlight it and click "Remove Formatting" (the eraser in the upper left)!
Here are some old banners you can also use:
This one was made by me:
Having trouble with a banner? See the last question in the FAQ for help and troubleshooting. [represent]
1
Your question: "If god does get involved with some peoples lives then why doesn't he help the starving and abused people around the world?"
Amazon's description of what the book answers: “If God is good and all-powerful, why does he allow his creatures to suffer pain?”
That's almost a perfect restatement of your question. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to quote random passages to you. The book is a comprehensive answer to your question, and shooting random passages at you would defeat the point. Heck, the first review of the book explicitly states, "A "Cliff Notes" version of this book would miss the point". If you actually want an answer to your question, I've given you the best resource that probably exists. It's not a simple answer, nor is it one that will most likely be answered by a forum composed largely of atheists.
But in response to MagicBush, you apparently expanded upon your question. " I am asking why he allows some to suffer in a living hell and die in misery while he supposedly helps people who are already pretty well off by comparison." I would just like to note that that is not what you originally asked, in bold, no less. Nevertheless, the book stills answers the question. Your next bold statement makes no sense, because all I can glean from it is that the book magically becomes on topic when we start quoting passages.
Look, I don't mean to be pessimistic, nor rude. But there is a difference between seeking the answer to a question and posting an apparent contradict to be confirmed by like-minded people so you can revel in your perceived intellectual superiority. I'm not saying you should or have to read the book, but what I am saying is that if you truly seek the answer that book is your best chance at finding it. The man who wrote it was not only one of the best minds of his time, but also a former atheist.
3
If you actually want a comprehensive answer, I would suggest The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis. I've never heard anyone explain it better than he.
1
5
I used to post more often; nowadays, less frequently. Perhaps I've become jaded, perhaps bored, but it seems to me the harsher moderation of late is somewhat necessary. People, and by that I mean regulars and newcomers alike, seem to resort to insults and thinly veiled flaming far more quickly, with less provocation. That fact that the regulars often sheathe their insults in good grammar and adequate vocabulary means nothing. It surprises me when I see people talking about their undeserved warnings, because I'm frankly surprised more haven't been handed out. As a quick example, I was surprised to see myself receiving my first formal infraction for content I had posted months ago. It was certainly a deserved infraction, and it wasn't pursued when I posted it, perhaps because it received a bit of rep. However, that seems to be indicative of an overall problem with PPNS - it's not exactly a secret that there is a heavy liberal slant, and even poor quality or outright flaming content gets either repped or just ignored when posted if it matches the circle jerk that happens to be going on at the time. Just because the majority of the forum agrees with you doesn't mean you don't deserve a warning for what you posted. People feel safe posting hateful and insulting messages because they know they will receive no backlash from the forum - but then are surprised when they receive backlash in the form of a deserved warning.
It can be frustrating to see sections of a topic disappearing with no explanation, and perhaps that's something that warrants some discussion. That said, when I've pursued the reason why topics or sections of topics were removed, I've almost always found the moderators helpful and willing to explain. Only a few times have I felt a topic was removed (or moved) unjustly, and reasoned discussion always ended up working it out, one way or another. The mods I've talked to are always willing to listen - just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they aren't doing their jobs right.
5
This post strikes me as rather... what's the word? Unforgiving, maybe, with a dash of intolerance and superiority.
An understanding of science isn't built on memorizing random facts. Intelligence certainly isn't, by it's very definition. I have no trouble admitting that I would have probably been off by a few hundred thousand years on the inception of humans, although I knew the other questions by chance. And that's because first of all, two of those questions are absolutely ridiculous by nature. There is no set point that the earth was created. You really can't define it's creation by anything other than arbitrary boundaries. When did the clump of rocks that formed together become the earth? At half of it's current size? Three quarters? When it started stably orbiting the sun? When it developed a magnetic field? There's no way to objectively draw a definition. I could say 14 billion years ago at the Big Bang, because all the constituents of Earth were created then.
Same concept with the "first humans". Humans evolved, as we know, from a long chain of processes that is still happening today. It strikes me as rather asinine to designate a specific person, or point in time, where the first human was born. It is impossible, by definition, for an individual to evolve. Only populations do. We can say the first humans appeared when they developed around the same quality of us as homo sapiens, but even that would only be drawing an arbitrary line in the dirt. Is it when skull structure matched to within certain tolerances? How about when our genetics matched to a certain degree? Maybe it's when the current humans would have been able to mate with this proto-human to produce fertile offspring. And that's the biological definition. But it's simply a convenient line we've drawn for ourselves to create a ranking system. Someone unversed in how we organize our species but with a perfect knowledge of the entire history of Earth would get that question "wrong", by your standards, because they don't know where we decided to draw our line in the dust.
But more important than that, science isn't built on understanding random facts. I could quiz you on hundreds of questions, right now, that you wouldn't know the answer to without Googling first. Most of them have to do with ridiculously specific physics formulas we're going through right now, with a sprinkling of stuff from the college bio course I took last year. Does that mean you don't understand biology, because you can't remember how nerve signals reset after passing through, or that you are an idiot because you can't remember or don't know what a K constant is? Of course not. Even physicists look up formulas that they haven't used in a while. Biologists do background research before starting their own research. The students in your class, for example, could simply have not known the arbitrary fact that the universe is 14 billion years old. When you think about it, it's a rather useless piece of knowledge, even within a scientific context. Wouldn't it be far more useful to have a basic understanding of the Big Bang? Wouldn't it be far more useful to know how to think critically with the information you do have? That's why I find it ridiculous that you dismiss someone as an idiot because they didn't know the answers to three questions, two of which were rather asinine anyway.
16 sextillion years isn't an awful guess. It sounds to me like they were thinking quite critically with the information they had: The universe is quite old, and it began an unimaginably long time ago. Sounds he like took the information available to him and picked a number that sounded reasonable. That, to me, is actually a more scientifically impressive answer than just memorizing a random fact and spitting it back out.
In the context of young Calvin here, ask yourself which would be more impressive. Susie, sitting next to Calvin, spent all night studying the events leading up to the colonization of the New World, along with important people and a general chronological context. When faced with this question, she remembered that Columbus discovered the New World in 1492, and that because of political turmoil colonization didn't really begin until quite a bit later. Additionally, she remembered something about the pilgrims leaving because of religious persecution, which happened under Queen Elizabeth, who left power in 1603. With this information, she thought a reasonable guess would be 1610, because they didn't leave until a bit later.
Calvin, on the other hand, glanced in his textbook a minute before class and memorized that fact by pure luck.
Calvin got the question right. Susie got it wrong. But who really deserves the credit here? Who actually had the important knowledge? In the same way, it's almost irrelevant if you can memorize random facts about the age of earth, or the universe, or the human race. Having an understanding that you can draw from and analyze is far more important.
OK, rant over. I suppose the final point is that I think you are judging your classmates quite harshly, especially since some of the ones you single out didn't seem to have that bad of a grasp. Additionally, your own understanding of some random facts you can regurgitate is not that impressive. I'm not defending the creationist, by the way.
1
OK, I was misunderstanding you. There are some restrictions, but it is by no means illegal to manufacture fake guns, so long as those restrictions are followed.
1
I know many would disagree, but up until the point I posted not a single person had, whereas if, say, a Christian had posted this same thing (something to the effect of "look at my high IQ, therefore you're all stupid atheists"), there would have been around twenty new posts by the time I even found the bit.
Again, this is just me expressing my annoyance at the one-sidedness of the forum in regards to certain issues. I have no problem with a large portion being atheist, but it does annoy me that many allow completely idiotic posts like that to stand. I have no evidence for my viewpoint beyond what I've seen when Christians do post similar statements, but I was half-serious when I said I was considering making an alternate account to detail reactions if I did post almost word for word restatements, but from the opposite side. I think it would be a fascinating experience.
3
Cosmic, I just want to point out that I think it's a great service you do combating the complacency of this forum towards any opinion that already matches the majority. The consensus generally seems to be that "if they agree with me, it doesn't matter if they used a logical fallacy to get there". This seems to especially apply with religion, as I see many people getting away with obvious and blatant strawmen, misrepresentations, or simple ad hominem. I wish I had the motivation to so thoroughly address so many.
4