Spore and the debate on evolution
- Thread starter mrnelsby
- Start date
Woe Is You post=9.70435.695027 said:
HaHa no i hadn't but i will.
On a side note, as i mentioned, i am dead keen to play this game though it seems i'm going to have to wait a while, as in until EA wakes up to itself and removes the mass effect style DRM http://fredbenenson.com/blog/2008/09/07/spore-drm-and-disorganized-activism/
Its because in order to have a debate you have to have two valid sides of an issue to debate. Intelligent Design isn't a valid point of view, it is a religious belief not grounded in sound science.
-Gooney
-Gooney
lol have gamers been attacked so much recently that we lie in wait for arguments that depict games?mrnelsby post=9.70435.691533 said:
BTW grammar Nazi's if you start a sentence with a abbreviation eg lol how should it be spelt, lol Lol or LOL.
Oh bloody hell.
And don't start saying "microevolution is real but macroevolution is not" because "microevolution" IS "macroevolution". There is no difference. Changes happen slowly and minimally over a humongous amount of time.
The words "theory" and "law" are misleading: "law" tells you what will happen. "Theory" will tell you HOW will it happen and WHY (well, on a physical level anyway).
Also, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. This is the scientific method:
1. Observation: Finding pheromone.
2. Hypothesis: Formulation of hypothesis, an attempt to understand and model the pheromone(s) in question.
3. Experiment or observe to either deny or confirm hypothesis. If something happens that does not go along with hypothesis then either change existing hypothesis or make a new one.
4. Theory: Repeat step 2-3 until you get hypothesis that models reality well enough.
More here: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
I am being serious here: there is no argument. There has been no argument among academic circles since Darwin. There has been no true argument in the level of law for quite a while now. The only place where there is an argument is within the minds of creationists.
The writer definitely distorted what Will Wright said. See my bolded parts: from "might call militant atheists" we get "militant atheists". Those two words mean an enormous difference.
Here is the quote about militant atheists from the actual interview:
http://kotaku.com/5035628/militant-atheists-are-moaning-about-spore
Let me explain why.
Militant atheists see religion, any religion, as a form of mental illness. You believe in something that is not there, so therefore you are insane. You make a judgement influenced by beliefs in something that is not there, therefore your judgement is flawed.
For militant atheists, progression is when people abandon religion, thus abandon what they perceive as insanity and become a person that sees the world clearly. Thus, people will make better decisions, better judgement and understand things better. That's the idea anyway.
What offends militant atheists here, is that in Spore, you NEED a religion for society to function and this is an insult for reasons obvious by now.
Spore wanted to avoid fire from the religious side as much as possible, so they hit over the mark.
Does it make sense now?
Personally, I think "oh shut up and hand me a drink".
If you try to teach creationism as it is, you will not fool anyone and you will be violating federal law by trying to preach religion in public. Note that I use the word "preach" not "teach". Preach means that its held as true, while teach means that it is taught about.
The point of Intelligent Design is to fool people to think that it isn't creationism, no matter how obviously it is. They replace the word "god" with "designer" and "created" with "designed" and so forth. At first appearer, it does not look like creationism but it still is.
It is nothing more then a political trick.
Of course the Dover (or whatever their name was) trial showed how well it worked: not at all.
Also, your argument is horribly flawed.
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". There is no such word in the English language and the term you are trying to convey does not fucking exist.
The term you are looking for is "biologist".
Biologist tell you that evolution exists, because without it, biology won't make any sense. Biologists will go out their way to fight with creationist, both in public and in court. Biologist believe in evolution to be factual.
Why?
Because evolution is factual as it demonstratable as such. End of discussion.
Furthermore, just because someone believes in evolution it doesn't meant he or she is an atheist: there are plenty of sane Christians, Muslims, etc that believe evolution to be factual.
That's both an interesting and very hypocritical position to take: how can you believe that animals change and adept yet believe that humans did not evolve?
And don't start saying "microevolution is real but macroevolution is not" because "microevolution" IS "macroevolution". There is no difference. Changes happen slowly and minimally over a humongous amount of time.
You do realise that gravitation is a theory too?
The words "theory" and "law" are misleading: "law" tells you what will happen. "Theory" will tell you HOW will it happen and WHY (well, on a physical level anyway).
Also, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. This is the scientific method:
1. Observation: Finding pheromone.
2. Hypothesis: Formulation of hypothesis, an attempt to understand and model the pheromone(s) in question.
3. Experiment or observe to either deny or confirm hypothesis. If something happens that does not go along with hypothesis then either change existing hypothesis or make a new one.
4. Theory: Repeat step 2-3 until you get hypothesis that models reality well enough.
More here: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
The argument is closed and settled; it has been settled for nearly a century, if not more. Why not argue that children should be taught that between planets there is ether, not vacuum?
I am being serious here: there is no argument. There has been no argument among academic circles since Darwin. There has been no true argument in the level of law for quite a while now. The only place where there is an argument is within the minds of creationists.
He was being sarcastic, you twit.
Don't link to a second-hand article, link to the source. The author of the article may as well be lying. He's not, but he may as well be.
The writer definitely distorted what Will Wright said. See my bolded parts: from "might call militant atheists" we get "militant atheists". Those two words mean an enormous difference.
Here is the quote about militant atheists from the actual interview:
http://kotaku.com/5035628/militant-atheists-are-moaning-about-spore
The problem wasn't the controlled evolution part: the problem was with the point that a civilization NEEDS religion.
Let me explain why.
Militant atheists see religion, any religion, as a form of mental illness. You believe in something that is not there, so therefore you are insane. You make a judgement influenced by beliefs in something that is not there, therefore your judgement is flawed.
For militant atheists, progression is when people abandon religion, thus abandon what they perceive as insanity and become a person that sees the world clearly. Thus, people will make better decisions, better judgement and understand things better. That's the idea anyway.
What offends militant atheists here, is that in Spore, you NEED a religion for society to function and this is an insult for reasons obvious by now.
Spore wanted to avoid fire from the religious side as much as possible, so they hit over the mark.
Does it make sense now?
Personally, I think "oh shut up and hand me a drink".
Actually, its not. In the USA, it is specifically forbidden to teach children in school. It's the very first amendment.
If you try to teach creationism as it is, you will not fool anyone and you will be violating federal law by trying to preach religion in public. Note that I use the word "preach" not "teach". Preach means that its held as true, while teach means that it is taught about.
The point of Intelligent Design is to fool people to think that it isn't creationism, no matter how obviously it is. They replace the word "god" with "designer" and "created" with "designed" and so forth. At first appearer, it does not look like creationism but it still is.
It is nothing more then a political trick.
Of course the Dover (or whatever their name was) trial showed how well it worked: not at all.
That is a broad definition, not one relating to biology. The biological definition is much more precise and complicated.
Also, your argument is horribly flawed.
It's not deletable actually. Well, at least not with people who actually know what evolution is, how it works and you know, capitalise.
It's the Onion. Look it up.
Tell me, what are you, eight? You have to be eight to be that retarded.
There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". There is no such word in the English language and the term you are trying to convey does not fucking exist.
The term you are looking for is "biologist".
Biologist tell you that evolution exists, because without it, biology won't make any sense. Biologists will go out their way to fight with creationist, both in public and in court. Biologist believe in evolution to be factual.
Why?
Because evolution is factual as it demonstratable as such. End of discussion.
Furthermore, just because someone believes in evolution it doesn't meant he or she is an atheist: there are plenty of sane Christians, Muslims, etc that believe evolution to be factual.
Go look up Tibetian and Indian history and find out just how bloody those religions. Just because you haven't heard these religions creating crusades and wars, doesn't mean there aren't any.
Society's beliefs and values act like a skewed pendulum. They sway from conservative to liberal, conservative to liberal, but it leans to being more liberal with every swing.
I believe that every successive generation will be more liberal (assuming the world doesn't befall some calamity like a comet hitting the earth or a zombie plague), as seems to be the historical trend. Attrition. Attrition. Attrition.
So yeah, I believe in evolution and more and more people will believe in it with every passing generation. I cannot completely say that a higher power does not exist because I have at least two nagging questions. "What was there before the Bang? How did nothing come to end at once?"
-------------
This post is an opinion. I do not claim to be an expert, unless otherwise claiming to be an expert in the above post. I am one of thousands posting in a forum that is not known to exist by the other billions of people on this planet.
I believe that every successive generation will be more liberal (assuming the world doesn't befall some calamity like a comet hitting the earth or a zombie plague), as seems to be the historical trend. Attrition. Attrition. Attrition.
So yeah, I believe in evolution and more and more people will believe in it with every passing generation. I cannot completely say that a higher power does not exist because I have at least two nagging questions. "What was there before the Bang? How did nothing come to end at once?"
-------------
This post is an opinion. I do not claim to be an expert, unless otherwise claiming to be an expert in the above post. I am one of thousands posting in a forum that is not known to exist by the other billions of people on this planet.
I actually said that to a really fanatical Catholic the other day and he called me the anti Christ. I think your onto something there, mate.PhatmasterJ post=9.70435.691581 said:
Do you know if the creator of that website is male or female? Because people keep claiming that the author is stating he is either female or male quite a few times which leads people to believe the site is one big trolling session.Fraser.J.A post=9.70435.719912 said:
I guess I have never seen any intent on the part of the Bible to be taken as a science book. The amount of time wasted on this fight is staggering. It's just a tempest in a teapot, created by those who need something to make themselves feel righteous.
The really funny thing is, it was my college astronomy professor (Extraterrestrial Life at UT) who proved the existence of God to me. (I had always "believed" but nothing like someone pointing out a simple yet brilliant fact, is there?) Yes, the same dudes proving the age of the universe also are men of faith--perhaps more so because "have you not seen Him in the things He has made?"
The really funny thing is, it was my college astronomy professor (Extraterrestrial Life at UT) who proved the existence of God to me. (I had always "believed" but nothing like someone pointing out a simple yet brilliant fact, is there?) Yes, the same dudes proving the age of the universe also are men of faith--perhaps more so because "have you not seen Him in the things He has made?"
Haha! Those are some excellent finds! I love that Spore threatens that guy's world view.
Back to my own Spore experience, my little race of theocratic space-bible thumpers are now being threatened by another theocracy since I wouldn't pay their non-believer tax. I declined like three times and now they have declared war on me! Love it!
Back to my own Spore experience, my little race of theocratic space-bible thumpers are now being threatened by another theocracy since I wouldn't pay their non-believer tax. I declined like three times and now they have declared war on me! Love it!
Ooh... wow. Well, between the last time I saw Anti-Spore and the time I posted that link, this happened [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.71330]. Rolled.
I myself find atheists with a sense of superiority to those with faith claiming religion to be ignorant and foolish to be just as close-minded and stupid as those that take the bible literally and use it to hate brown people and science. Bragging that you have no faith whatsoever seems to me like a very sad thing. Not to say that atheism is at all bad, I just don't like the smugness it seems to give those select few loud jerks out there. For the record, I don't observe any particular religion. Yep! I'm one of those guys that can't make up their minds.
Personally Spore to me represents an absolutely ideal interpretation of both evolution and creationism. I don't honestly see it as supporting one more than the other, but rather both where your creatures evolve under your guiding hand. It also proves to me that I should never have as much power as a god, because when I got to the space stage frying things with my laser was way too fun.
Personally Spore to me represents an absolutely ideal interpretation of both evolution and creationism. I don't honestly see it as supporting one more than the other, but rather both where your creatures evolve under your guiding hand. It also proves to me that I should never have as much power as a god, because when I got to the space stage frying things with my laser was way too fun.
Rather than throwing semantics about words like "ape" and "monkey" around, why don't we consider the original poster's point: that while there has been considerable reaction from scientists, science educators, and others to Spore, I've heard nary a peep from the usual frothing-at-the-mouth "religious conservatives".
It's another game where the player plays God. I thought that was a guaranteed way to attract some attention from Focus on the Family and their ilk. Can someone please show me an article that describes any reaction at all from such a viewpoint?
EDIT: OK, yes, antispore.com fits the bill. Thanks.
It's another game where the player plays God. I thought that was a guaranteed way to attract some attention from Focus on the Family and their ilk. Can someone please show me an article that describes any reaction at all from such a viewpoint?
EDIT: OK, yes, antispore.com fits the bill. Thanks.
