No Darran, I'm afraid that all sports games especially for consoles are absolutely retarded.
Your views on evolution or other? :D
All sports games ?? All consoles ??
Pro Evo has been proven to be benificial for hand eye co-ordination, Personally I liked the earlier versions up till about 3 then they started getting too complicated with the control system, Other favourites of mine are Tiger Woods PGA series and the World Championship Snooker range.
Does Gran Turismo count as a sports game as it's also a favourite of mine ??
Personally sports games aren't for me. The racing games are literally holding one button the whole time (accelerate) then working your turning with a few tricks, unless of course its mario kart or the like.
Footie games have always sucked for me ever since the first nintendo soccer. MY brothers would play that the whole time and I wanted to play mario, shadowgate, duck hunt, and MAYBE motorbike racing.
Speaking of which I should put out a post about gamertags...
So it's then about the biopsychological explanation for selfishness?
That's cool..had that in a lecture of biopsy...;)...
happy_me wrote:
Nell wrote:
there's a book called selfish jean? seriously?
Seriously :) It's written by Richard Dawkins, a quite famous biologist. It's about molecular biology... or genetics, written in a way that everyone can understand.
I find Dawkins to be a bit of a twat to be honest...
He's so sure that he is right and the other sides are wrong that he's almost fundamentalist in his beliefs, which to me means he is not being objective. He's just as bad as the creationists in completely disregarding any other theory whatsoever he doesn't even take the time to look at it before dismissing it as nonsense as it doesn't comply with his dogma. That to me is being an arse, personally I hope he's wrong just to see the look on the smug, arrogant, upper class, tosser's face !!
Dubz
btw I do agree with most of his stuff, I'm just not stupid enough to completely take his word for it.
I find Dawkins to be a bit of a twat to be honest...
He's so sure that he is right and the other sides are wrong that he's almost fundamentalist in his beliefs, which to me means he is not being objective. He's just as bad as the creationists in completely disregarding any other theory whatsoever he doesn't even take the time to look at it before dismissing it as nonsense as it doesn't comply with his dogma. That to me is being an arse, personally I hope he's wrong just to see the look on the smug, arrogant, upper class, tosser's face !!
Dubz
btw I do agree with most of his stuff, I'm just not stupid enough to completely take his word for it.
I see what you mean, but he's actually a very clever and fair man. Hes very good at looking at all sides and thinking as Devil's Advocaat (pardon the pun) - his arguments are all based on chance when it comes to religeon v science. For those things we aren't 100% sure on he says well we have this much evidence to support our scientific claim, against the alternative (usually creationism) for which there is no actual evidence. He also makes the intersting point that whenever science can't 10000% justify a theory with all visible proof, religeon immediately points it out as a gap, which MUST be filled by god - which is reall unfair and ridiculous. Why do they win be default? If you had a murder trial you wouldn't expect an exact piece of footage showing eery muscular movement of the suspect for 24 hours before the murder as well as testimonys from every creature in a 1000 ft radius etc. The problem is namely creationists DONT study what evolution is (just as an example), they listen to pseudo-scientific talk, don't get the even the jist of it, and assume they know whats being said.
I'll take this opportunity to point out the evolution IS a fact - it IS observable and understandable on so many levels (I can give examples if no one beleives) The thing that is in dispute even by a small number of sceientists is the REASONS - why/where/what/when etc - thats the THEORY of why it occurs - but it DOES occur.
Most religeous people (though not all) tell me - and these are DIRECT quotes from a handful of people. I hear these types of things so often I have rebuttles instilled in my memory I don't eve need to think about anymore.
I find Dawkins to be a bit of a twat to be honest...
He's so sure that he is right and the other sides are wrong that he's almost fundamentalist in his beliefs, which to me means he is not being objective. He's just as bad as the creationists in completely disregarding any other theory whatsoever he doesn't even take the time to look at it before dismissing it as nonsense as it doesn't comply with his dogma. That to me is being an arse, personally I hope he's wrong just to see the look on the smug, arrogant, upper class, tosser's face !!
Dubz
btw I do agree with most of his stuff, I'm just not stupid enough to completely take his word for it.
I see what you mean, but he's actually a very clever and fair man. Hes very good at looking at all sides and thinking as Devil's Advocaat (pardon the pun) - his arguments are all based on chance when it comes to religeon v science. For those things we aren't 100% sure on he says well we have this much evidence to support our scientific claim, against the alternative (usually creationism) for which there is no actual evidence. He also makes the intersting point that whenever science can't 10000% justify a theory with all visible proof, religeon immediately points it out as a gap, which MUST be filled by god - which is reall unfair and ridiculous. Why do they win be default? If you had a murder trial you wouldn't expect an exact piece of footage showing eery muscular movement of the suspect for 24 hours before the murder as well as testimonys from every creature in a 1000 ft radius etc. The problem is namely creationists DONT study what evolution is (just as an example), they listen to pseudo-scientific talk, don't get the even the jist of it, and assume they know whats being said.
I'll take this opportunity to point out the evolution IS a fact - it IS observable and understandable on so many levels (I can give examples if no one beleives) The thing that is in dispute even by a small number of sceientists is the REASONS - why/where/what/when etc - thats the THEORY of why it occurs - but it DOES occur.
Most religeous people (though not all) tell me - and these are DIRECT quotes from a handful of people. I hear these types of things so often I have rebuttles instilled in my memory I don't eve need to think about anymore.
Seriously :) It's written by Richard Dawkins, a quite famous biologist. It's about molecular biology... or genetics, written in a way that everyone can understand.
'it cant be true - I don't remember ever being a monkey - I don't like the idea that I used to be a monkey"
- Nope, you're right, you were never a monkey, and the mere idea that you might have been a monkey is a terrible and trajic thought - as far as I can tell you are and always have been a human being.
"Look at this picture of a gorilla with spectacles and a hat on with a pipe in its mouth - does that look like your grandparents? I don't think so"
- No I would very much doubt that was a picture of anyone's grandfather other than another gorilla, unless there is some new cross breeding the rest of the world isnt aware of. No one ever said your grandparents would bve a gorilla - your grand grand ancestors share a COMMON ANCESTOR with some speices of primate.
"Look at this picture of a Duck crossed with a crocodile - a crocoduck - its silly isn't it? That couldn't happen"
- Once more, this is a fictional result of apparent cross-breeding. No one would care to invisage the idea of a bird cross-breeding with a reptile 20 times its size. This is not even partially reflective of evolution
"How can all animals have one common ancestor - take something like a bat and a whale, how can two such disperate animals be remotely related - and if they were, wouldn't we expect to see dozens of transitional forms between them?"
- Yes we would expect these animals to have a common ancestor even evolution wasn't 'true' - given that THEY ARE BOTH MAMMALS! and NO we would not expect to see transitional forms between these two, as that, once again, is not how evolution works. You would expect to traces back using fossil evidence (which is limited though easy proof of evolution) and see that at one point there was one animal (probably sea-based) that found a niche, one found a niche to help with its sea-dwelling nature, and one found the limbs to crawl fom the water(this did NOT happen in a day! so gradual you couldn't imagine) and at htis point they were no longer compatible - one went on to rodent, mouse, bat etc, the other to mamallia, sea dwelling etc.
'it cant be true - I don't remember ever being a monkey - I don't like the idea that I used to be a monkey"
- Nope, you're right, you were never a monkey, and the mere idea that you might have been a monkey is a terrible and trajic thought - as far as I can tell you are and always have been a human being.
"Look at this picture of a gorilla with spectacles and a hat on with a pipe in its mouth - does that look like your grandparents? I don't think so"
- No I would very much doubt that was a picture of anyone's grandfather other than another gorilla, unless there is some new cross breeding the rest of the world isnt aware of. No one ever said your grandparents would bve a gorilla - your grand grand ancestors share a COMMON ANCESTOR with some speices of primate.
"Look at this picture of a Duck crossed with a crocodile - a crocoduck - its silly isn't it? That couldn't happen"
- Once more, this is a fictional result of apparent cross-breeding. No one would care to invisage the idea of a bird cross-breeding with a reptile 20 times its size. This is not even partially reflective of evolution
"How can all animals have one common ancestor - take something like a bat and a whale, how can two such disperate animals be remotely related - and if they were, wouldn't we expect to see dozens of transitional forms between them?"
- Yes we would expect these animals to have a common ancestor even evolution wasn't 'true' - given that THEY ARE BOTH MAMMALS! and NO we would not expect to see transitional forms between these two, as that, once again, is not how evolution works. You would expect to traces back using fossil evidence (which is limited though easy proof of evolution) and see that at one point there was one animal (probably sea-based) that found a niche, one found a niche to help with its sea-dwelling nature, and one found the limbs to crawl fom the water(this did NOT happen in a day! so gradual you couldn't imagine) and at htis point they were no longer compatible - one went on to rodent, mouse, bat etc, the other to mamallia, sea dwelling etc.
These are completely moronic, surely there are people out there who can come up with better arguements, a child could shoot these down in flames without even trying. Not that you are a child of course, well... not all the time :op.
These are completely moronic, surely there are people out there who can come up with better arguements, a child could shoot these down in flames without even trying. Not that you are a child of course, well... not all the time :op.
Dubz
These are what your bog-standard idiotic creationists or general christians will come up with on your average rainy day.
The fundamentalists are actually worse. They literally refuse to read any of the evidence or journals, still claim they know what we're 'trying to say' in terms of evolution etc.
They use what they think are idiot proof arguments like 'everything is so complex. it must've been designed by someONE....'
An infamous example is for example Rev Comfort with Mike Cameron who aired on youtube "The atheists nighmare"
You should look it up.
It entails him talking about the five ridges on a bananae which fit directly into the five ridges in the grasping upright hand, how the banana naturally curves towards the face, how it has a tab that we can pull back the skin with, how it fits perfectly in the standard eating position of the mouth
Easy arguments are firstly that the modern banana is only genetically grown by cultivation, they are a particular breed which cannot grow by themselves. Real natural bananas are almost spherical and not very sweet. In fact the banans we eat today have to go through gruelling tests and cannot be put on the market unless they follow specific criteria.
Further more, how does he explain the coconut, the pomegranite, the prickly pear, the stink fruit, the gooseberry, poisonous elderberreries? How does he explain that theyre dreaded 'monkey' loves to eat bananas and has the same hand structure as us?
It fits in our hand and our mouth yeah, because its pointed towards our face. Would I be wrecking his day if I took it from him and turned so it was pointed away? Does that not wreck his theory? What if I then inserted it in his arse where it would fit quite well as well - does that mean thats a use god had intended for it?
I believe in evolution but I also believe you have to be careful and put things in perspective (if that means anything in English other than a literal translation from Spanish).
With all the "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" thing, evolution has been cientifically used to justify all sorts of
discrimination, racism, ethnocentrism, and has even led to genocides (the most famous one being the holocaust).
So I guess I'd say I believe in evolution up to a point.
