taks

yeah, a bit of a circular argument, or a tautology. taks

origins are always a matter of faith. there's no way to know conclusively what kicked off the "beginning" of life till we find a way to replicate it in a lab (this is one of the pieces of the evolution puzzle that has no evidence, which leaves it in the hypothesis land), nor the beginning of the universe for that matter. taks

well, we are debating a largely semantic nit. one that carries with it significant implications, but semantic nonetheless. taks

given that we're talking about a scientific theory, the former prevails, and it favors my position. then it is only theory if it cannot ever be completely proved. that's what "theory" means, sort of like "mostly proved, with a preponderance of evidence, but still tentative." you'll note that you never see it referred to as "the fact of evolution." not by dawkins, not by russell, not by any scientist. it is always "the theory of evolution." similarly "the theory of relativity" as an example. this is partly true. evolution is not purely a statistical creature. there's a bit more to it than that. taks

a bit of a bifurcation only because the leading theories of how the universe "came to be" don't all assume a persistent universe. big bang still rules, and time before that is meaningless. close enough to occam's razor, however, to make your point. taks

no, not at all. go look up the definition of the scientific method and you'll not see the word "proof" anywhere. you will see the word "disproof," however, as it is much easier to disprove than it is to prove just about anything. science is about finding evidence to support hypothesis, at which point, assuming there is enough evidence, hypothesis can be treated as theory. disproof is as simple as finding a counter example most times. taks

scientific "proof" is another misnomer though it is a bit of a semantic nit. proofs are generally relegated to mathematics. taks

uh, technically evolution is a theory. as i said, many (if not most) aspects of evolution are indeed fact, or at least testable (observable as well). though as a whole, it is a theory. i also noted that there are few scientific theories that ever make it into the realm of law or "fact." that's just the nature of science i guess. taks

perhaps. taks

he's not a president but he played one on tv. apparently, he's also stayed at a holiday inn. taks

twas what i suspected. taks

part of the problem with the two-party system. other candidates, those that may actually have some merit, but are not linked to any major party, only serve to dilute the voting. many end up picking the lesser of the two major evils rather than waste their vote. taks

interesting point. reminds me of a part of the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy. zaphod's ego was so large that when presented with the immensity of the entire universe, and his relative insignificance within it, it merely served to enhance his already over inflated ego. taks

uh, given your previous statement did you intend to say "... do teach as fact"? if so, then perhaps the lines are blurred from your high school perspective on what constitutes the differences between fact and theory? not meant to be a criticism, but i'm just saying that maybe hindsight, after you're well out of school, will allow you to see your teachings in a different light. it is, after all, referred to as "the theory of evolution" by most mainstream scientists. many (if not most) aspects of evolution are indeed fact, as they have been observed, though some of the mechanisms are in question or at least debatable. no, btw, i'm not in high school, though i am in school yet again. fortunately, i'm done with my classwork focusing on research at this point. taks

for the most part, that's all evolution is. generally slow adaptation through the process of natural selection. sometimes it is punctured by very fast changes, perhaps due to a significant mutation that provides an extreme benefit to the "new" species. taks

with my new core2duo i can play most of my games (well, one at a time) while running serious simulations on the second CPU. in fact, i need to get my arse in gear and back to the simulations... procrastinating heavily. taks

i can believe that there is a God by "miracles" that seriously did not just happen. evolution when i've studied it seems really improbable. someone explained it to me like if you stick a bunch of parts in a bag and shake it up and get a watch. the only thing im really against is the fact that evolution is taught as fact and not theory in schools. i wouldnt say God created us and then ignored us. but if you ignore him, theres a good chance God will ignore u that someone did you a disservice. and, i'm not sure where you came from, but it is taught everywhere i've been as theory, with many supporting facts (overwhelmingly so). very few scientific principles are treated as law (fact), gravity the most prominent (and yet, oddly, one of the least explainable in terms of "why"). taks

i suppose. realistically, while i think gun control is an important issue, it is low on my list of "things to watch for" in any candidate. i tend to be more concerned with economic policies since they impact everyone. taks

i have not noticed this with NWN2, but overall, if you aren't in hard core rules, it's a pretty easy game to begin with. particularly since you never risk death at level 1, advancing to 3rd level rather quickly. with 3E rules, some things are a bit easier anyway. taks

observing not necessarily oblivious. perhaps even intervening every once in a while to right some egregious wrong. you know, allowing all the hebrews to escape their egyptian pursuers, then condemning them to walk in the desert for 40 years... that kind of thing. taks

probably. there's been plenty of discussion on the PRNGs used in crpgs, and i typically throw my nickel's worth into the fray given my experience with them. the kinds i'm using, however, particular the one built-in to matlab, are too slow for the amount of numbers that need to be generated in games. everything i've read indicates the mersenne twister is a good candidate. reasonably fast and very random. taks

unfortunately, fred's the only guy i like in that list, and that's mostly because i like him as an actor. his stand on federalism is admirable, however, and he seems quite smart. but other than that, i don't know a whole lot about him (nor mitt for that matter, and i don't like mccain... he's a liberal infiltrator, IMO). taks

that's why charismatic leaders gain popularity. that's also why cults exist. taks

as i progress through BG again, yet another gripe has reared its ugly head. this is not so much restricted to BG, rather, most crpgs seem to suffer this fate. in particular, the random number generator SUCKS DONKEY NUGGETS! dang it's bad. i recall it sucked in BG2 as well (not as much) and ToEE, and... the list goes on. we were in the area where you get out of the nashkel mines. an area i had to reload half a dozen times because the number sequence was in "good for enemies" mode. imoen gets hit by skeletons tossing darts. imoen had 23 hit points. two hits later, yes, two hits, and she's down to 2. apparently they criticalled on both. these dart lobbers then proceeded to severely wound the rest of my party, nearly killing my main dude. i reloaded. hopefully now that PCs are getting more powerful, developers will see fit to implement something OTHER than the "quick -n- dirty" method used in that C recipes book running around the web. a mersenne twister probably will suffice. the problem with the quick -n- dirty is that successive "rolls" are highly correlated, particularly depending upon how the numbers are created. you get long strings of 0, 0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4... etc., followed by long strings at the high end (like a sinusoidal swing from one end to the other). if you enter into a moderate fight with the low end on your characters, and the high end on the baddies, "death to you all!!!" grrr. of course the flip side is that you'll also walk into other fights that you should never win, completely wiping the baddies out in a few rounds. tit for tat i suppose. anyway, that's my game rant for the day. taks

actually, the concepts of creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. should it turn out that there is an all-powerful being, there's no reason he couldn't have simply kicked off the universe, i.e. creation, with the rules of evolution to guide the rest. the nutcases are those that are young earth creationists, insisting on a 4000-6000 year old earth. hovind is an example, apparently. that people will believe in, and in some cases follow, such loons is testament to the power of charisma. if you say something well enough, to enough people, eventually you'll get some henchmen in tow i guess. *shudder* taks