Spring RTS Engine

Raghna wrote:

Jazcash wrote:How do you create life from non-life? Life that knows how to breed and how to develop and evolve can't come from nothing, can it?

Actually...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPE2CnTh ... re=recentf

This might change your mind.

This is creating modified life from preexisting life. Not creating life from non life.

Obviously the latter is possible, the question is, what exactly is the first step, and how likely is it?

Very likely, somewhere in this universe, somwehere in time, nearl everything is possibel, so there is a place were cake grows on trees, and a hot warm cup of tea, waits for you.

Teutooni wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1v ... re=related

Hahah. That one is golden.

It's amazing how science can cure diseases, smash the atom and create nuclear explosions, yet be so wrong about everything that is mentioned in the Holy Bible

Yeah amazing isn't it. So let me get this correct, based on science we can create all these wonderful tools like computers and stuff, but it can't prove or disprove Ukko Ylijumala (ancient god worshipped in finland before christianity spread, known as Thor in scandinavia). Ukko Ylijumala clearly said in folklore he created rain and we can certainly see rain happening every now and then, so science must be wrong! Checkmate atheists.

You're aware this video is atheist propaganda, yes? The arguments presented there are not the arguments almost any but the most fundamentalist Christian will make.

Fundamentalists, to me, are not real Christians because they are shirking their responsibility to being decent human beings in the name of "faith". They are people who read the bible basically the same way a corrupt lawyer reads a legal document. Looking for loopholes.

how likely is it?

It could be very unlikely and still have happened: Oceans are much larger than any test tube, and the experiment had been left running for a billion year. The universe is large enough to host a great number of planets with liquid water. And, even if we'll never know, maybe our universe is not the only one. There's some quasi-theist yet somehow somewhat scientific accepted way of thinking, called anthropic principle, that say that, if the universe had birthed no life, then we wouldn't be there to ponder it, so the universe we're in is necessarly one of the very rare kind that can support life.

zwzsg wrote:There's some quasi-theist yet somehow somewhat scientific accepted way of thinking, called anthropic principle, that say that, if the universe had birthed no life, then we wouldn't be there to ponder it, so the universe we're in is necessarly one of the very rare kind that can support life.

Yup, one impossibly unlikely event is not a coincidence... its just what happened.

PicassoCT wrote:I whoreship the wholy book of spring, manifested out of the code written by the gods

available 2011, by packt publishing

KaiserJ wrote:

PicassoCT wrote:I whoreship the wholy book of spring, manifested out of the code written by the gods

available 2011, by packt publishing

Now, if i want to make money out of it, by becoming Guru, how do i do any decent advances?

Science Proves Itself Wrong!!!

c.f. this scientific paper: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

Take that atheist scum!

/endthread

zwzsg wrote:Science Proves Itself Wrong!!!

c.f. this scientific paper: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

Take that atheist scum!

/endthread

I haven't even read it yet but the title says it all. Just because science is wrong doesn't mean atheism is wrong, science doesn't directly have anything to do with religion. And "science is wrong", lol? Yeah perhaps one paper from one scientist studying one aspect of one sub group of science is wrong, I wouldn't say that proves all science is wrong

I haven't even read it

Thus your opinion is void and invalid.

Sucky_Lord wrote:science doesn't directly have anything to do with religion

This statement is correct irrespective of what papers i've read. Reading a paper doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.

The paper is just about how some scientific studies(though none are mentioned?) aren't as valid as they could be, due to sampling bias, small sample sizes, weak correlation... Im failing to see where this paper proves science wrong.

SCIENCE PROVES ITSELF RIGHT!!!!!
http://www.learner.org/jnorth/images/im ... h-tilt.gif

It can clearly neither prove itself right nor wrong, because there are numberless different fields of science, and just because one might be wrong(just like to point out this is the way science works, we make a wrong/right assumption and go about either proving or disproving it) doesn't mean the entire subject is rendered incorrect!

Sucky_Lord wrote:Reading a paper doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.

Yes it does! This paper was a real eyes-opener to me. I used to believe in Science like you. But now I see clearly through their fabrications.


I know how you feel, because I was like you, once. I believed blindly in the rigtheousness of Science, and laughed a the christian to whom I felt superior. Sure there were a few things that didn't tick right, but I denied and suppressed them. Until that day, when it all cracked. Follow me, let your mind flow free from the shackles of Science. Yes, you may feel insecure at first, but I'll be here to show you the patht to the real immanent Truth.

zwzsg wrote:

Sucky_Lord wrote:Reading a paper doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.

Yes it does! This paper was a real eyes-opener to me. I used to believe in Science like you. But now I see clearly through their fabrications.


I know how you feel, because I was like you, once. I believed blindly in the rigtheousness of Science, and laughed a the christian to whom I felt superior. Sure there were a few things that didn't tick right, but I denied and suppressed them. Until that day, when it all cracked. Follow me, let your mind flow free from the shackles of Science. Yes, you may feel insecure at first, but I'll be here to show you the patht to the real immanent Truth.

You do realise that the parts of science that are "wrong" are all published by companies setting out to make money, dont you?

Real scientists wouldn't bother to publish a paper that's incorrect, what would be the gain? It would just be disproved at a later date and the first scientist would lose all pride.

Im failing to see where this paper proves science wrong.

It proves, through adequate math, that the findings of science are more likely to be false than true.

just because one might be wrong doesn't mean the entire subject is rendered incorrect!

If you read the article, you'll see it shows the errors are introduced by the very scientific method itself, unbounded to any specific field. It is the way in which science is used to explore the world that is flawed on a fundamental level. No domain is spared.

You do realise that the parts of science that are "wrong" are all published by companies setting out to make money, dont you?

You really should read the article, as it addresses those point neatly: Yes, financial bias is one cause of bias. One bias amongst many.

And bias are only an aggravating factor, the article show how most research findings would still be false even if they weren't any bias.

Real scientists wouldn't bother to publish a paper that's incorrect, what would be the gain? It would just be disproved at a later date and the first scientist would lose all pride.

You want to defend science, but don't even know how it work? Scientist don't care for money (except for their lab equipment), all they want is getting published and quoted. Yes, scientist do compare each other worth solely by counting their number of published articles and number of references to their articles. The content, true or false, don't matter so much.

Scientist don't care for money (except for their lab equipment), all they want is getting published and quoted.

A pity there was no internet when Einstein or von Braun lived, I would have subscribed to their blogs.

knorke wrote:

Scientist don't care for money (except for their lab equipment), all they want is getting published and quoted.

A pity there was no internet when Einstein or von Braun lived, I would have subscribed to their blogs.

They would have got banned for "trolling" if they were blogging/posting at forums at that time...

TradeMark wrote:

knorke wrote:

Scientist don't care for money (except for their lab equipment), all they want is getting published and quoted.

A pity there was no internet when Einstein or von Braun lived, I would have subscribed to their blogs.

They would have got banned for "trolling" if they were blogging/posting at forums at that time...

True, though that is not to say that most trolls have merit behind their posts.

zwzsg wrote:Science Proves Itself Wrong!!!

also:

Research reveals false knowledge, down with research into research!!!!!!!

or should that be:

Invalidation of false research yields new knowledge!!!!!

Proving something to be false is still proving something. On the other hand proving something to be unable to give an accurate result is not.