The proper questions to ask are: Where's your proof? How do you know?

The fundamental weakness in Darwin's theory (besides the fact that it went against all reason, experience, and the Word of Christ) is that he based it on nothing more than the observation of some minor variations within a species. If you add to that his admission that the idea of a system as complex as an eye arising by chance was ridiculous, that he had no support from the fossil record, and that he knew nothing of genetics, it is clear that his explanation of Life's origins has always been science fiction, not Science.

Not only are abiogenesis (Life arising from non-life) and macroevolution (the sudden appearance of newer, more complex genetic program, structure, and function) unsupported by actual empirical evidence, they are contradicted by what we know.

For example, no evidence exists whatsoever that life arises apart from Life and Life's programs. Neither has anyone demonstrated that a genetic soup containing all the ingredients necessary for life can produce it by solely random, natural processes. And no, simulations don't count here, because a simulation is only as representative of reality as are the assumptions of its programmer(s).

Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory mistakes similarity in concept/design/function for evidence of descent. It is asking us to believe that Von Neumann-type metabolic machines containing enough program to fill hundreds and hundreds of college-level biology textbooks (all text, no pictures) arose by chance, apart from a Designer. It's asking us to believe that an Xbox evolved accidentally into an Xbox 360 with its new program, hardware, and function. It's asking us to believe that a wheel arose accidentally and evolved eventually into the space shuttle by only random, natural processes.

Every machine is the work of a designer. Every program has at its origin a programmer.

On the other hand, microevolution (the minor, random genetic mutations that occur within living things) is something that is observable and testable. It is therefore a scientifically-valid concept. It is important to remember, however, that such changes usually kill an organism (or make it really, really sick), they don't create new, more complex program, structure, and function.

The fact that microevolution occurs is not evidence of macroevolution having occurred.

In the matter of religion, the same questions apply: Where's your proof? How do you know?

The resurrection of Christ is the best attested-to fact of ancient history.

This comment was edited on Aug 8, 18:50.

We're not arguing the logical ideas behind religions. I only know logical ideas behind one religion, but it's rather philosophical (philosophy is a form of logic). If you want to get into that, I guess we can. But my argument is merely against evolution.

When I said religion was natural, one of the examples I gave was atheism. As in, atheism is a religion, just as much as Christianity is. People preach atheism, try to convert people to atheism, read books regarding atheism. I'm merely removing the word religion from the debate, because we're all religious, just not in the traditional sense.

Believers of intelligent design believe that time was created by a being who lives outside of time. Impossible to comprehend? Yes. But absolutely necessary for anything to exist. That's why evolution trips on a beginning and intelligent design doesn't. If everything is 100% natural and there is no creator, how did everything fall into place? It's a very natural logical question with only one possible answer: creation. Discovering a fossil record (which will never happen) doesn't solve this problem. There's already religious (non-atheist) people who believe in controlled evolution. Many theologians believe that the book of Genesis is an allegory. So theories abound all over the map. But the question about the beginning? Only one plausible answer.

As far as theories are concerned? It takes a leap of faith to believe anything. That's why atheism is a religion as much as anything else. Nothing can be concretely proven, therefore you must have faith in something to believe that something is true. Scientists have faith in evolution. Politicians have faith in global warming. Christians have faith in God. So you say faith in something that isn't provable is stupid, yet you have faith in something that is just as improvable. Not only that, but the entire question about the beginning, according to the logic of this world, proves evolution wrong. There was no big bang that was not spawned by something else. There is a beginning of time: it was created. The human intellect cannot comprehend infinity, or draw a line that goes on for eternity. There is a beginning, and an end. Always.

We are simply locked in a body with a brain that cannot comprehend these complexities.
This comment was edited on Aug 8, 05:18.

Evolution trips on some very fundamental mysteries. How did everything come to be? How does something as complex as time come into existence? Where is the beginning?

And religion doesn't trip over those same fundamental mysteries? Just like we can't comprehend how the matter contained in The Big Bang came into being or has always existed the same dilemma presents itself when dealing with the idea of an omnipotent being. Saying God always existed is no better than saying the matter in The Big Bang has always existed. The simple answer is that the universe doesn't make sense as it's either always existed or began... neither makes sense according to what we know of the universe.

Evolution is a guess. Science is about concrete, repeatable experiments that show results. There isn't even a fossil record to base evolution on, yet we teach it to our children like it's a duh-ralph fact. Doesn't that seem silly to you?

No. It's called the Theory Of Evolution because we don't have all the details - it's merely an explanation that fits evidence from observation and our knowledge of the world around us. I accept gravity even though it makes little sense how atoms can exert a force when grouped in large enough quantities - observation, study and many minds much greater than my own have brought us to this point.

Religion is very natural, no matter what you believe.

No. Religion is absurd, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Faith is something very different. The idea that we were created by a more powerful being is certainly entirely possible and not something I dismiss, though to me evolution is a sensible and logical idea - elements reacting over time to create life; it doesn't matter that the chance of it happening is slim because it just needs to happen. The chance of winning the lottery in minute though that doesn't make doing so any less plausible.

I was observing a debate one time between an evolutionist and a scientist who believes in intelligent design.

So am I to presume your assumption is that all proponents of evolution have an equal understanding of it? You observed one debate and came away with a conclusion that supports your existing beliefs... gee, what are the chances?

You could say we were placed here by any kind of strange superior being. But science has completely disavowed this idea.

Science is based upon evidence. I am not aware of any evidence for or against the placement of life on this planet by a superior being and there are proponents for either side. There is no way it has been "completely disavowed"... that is simply nonsense.

Evolution should be taught because it is a scientific theory that is very well supported and supported by the scientific community. Evolution isn't a "fact" but a scientific theory, which is constructed around absolute facts as well as assumptions based upon the rest of the evidence. Some of the fossil records are missing and certainly the flaws / potential problems with the theory of evolution SHOULD also be taught.

There isn't even a fossil record to base evolution on, yet we teach it to our children like it's a duh-ralph fact.

So if we discover fossil records that prove evolution to be fact can we finally get rid of religion? Of course not. What we'll see is religion again shifting its stance to suggest that the fossil records were created by God, or that The Bible wasn't being literal when it states that man was created in God's image or any other nonsense. Evolution is irrelevant to religion being illogical.

So, you say the Bible has been manipulated by people over the years, and that is certainly true for some translations (it's why some pastors read original texts in their original languages).

It doesn't matter what's "original" - it was still written by a person. It's also about which texts are included and which are omitted, another manipulation. There is no magical copy of The Bible that is somehow immune to manipulation.

But who's to say that science books have not been manipulated by scientists?

Dude, get off the crack pipe. Science, unlike religion, can be corroborated - experiments can be recreated or verified by other people.

What scientists need to be able to do is humble themselves enough to say, "We don't know."

Firstly, that is the case - even Stephen Hawking admits he doesn't understand how the centre of black holes work. Secondly, how about all religious people say "I believe in a God even though there is no direct evidence to support such a stance"? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Honestly, is the best intelligent design supporters can come up with "I heard someone once not make a good point in a debate" and "maybe science books are also wrong"?

Again, please can someone explain how you're meant to pick which is the right religion?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn

That is my point. Evolution is a guess. Science is about concrete, repeatable experiments that show results. There isn't even a fossil record to base evolution on, yet we teach it to our children like it's a duh-ralph fact. Doesn't that seem silly to you?

It shouldn't be taught as a fact, but it should be taught as the generally accepted theory that it is.

So, you say the Bible has been manipulated by people over the years, and that is certainly true for some translations (it's why some pastors read original texts in their original languages).

Of course, it isn't true of the one true translation that you subscribe to, right?

Then there's the question of how you know that the original texts have divine inspiration in the first place (thus creating a starting point for future manipulation).

I was observing a debate one time between an evolutionist and a scientist who believes in intelligent design. The person on the side of intelligent design was giving real examples of evidence of design vs evolution. The only argument the evolutionist had was, "Well science doesn't even acknowledge that because we don't think it is scientific." Now, for the record, intelligent design speaks to any idea of creation, not just the traditional Genesis version. You could say we were placed here by any kind of strange superior being. But science has completely disavowed this idea. My question is, on what grounds? What has been observed and studied enough to bring about this conclusion?

The only intelligent design vs. creation debates I've seen are completely worthless. Neither side presents credible evidence for why their side is more believable. For example, I've often heard the pro-design argument that the chances of evolution occurring (it might be the chances of the big band occurring - I forget) are the same as the chances of a Boeing 747 being disassembled by a tornado and coming back together again. What kind of evidence is that? An event or process doesn't need a large chance of happening to actually happen... things that have little chance of occurring can and do happen.

What scientists need to be able to do is humble themselves enough to say, "We don't know."

I agree, although I understand that scientists naturally take pride in their work. It can't be easy to admit they don't understand something.

This comment was edited on Aug 6, 21:21.

Evolution trips on some very fundamental mysteries. How did everything come to be? How does something as complex as time come into existence? Where is the beginning? Some creatures do evolve, yes. A frog from a tadpole, a butterfly from a caterpillar. You could even say that humans evolve in the womb. But there is no saying where these species came from, or how they "learned" to behave the way they do. They are, and they do. Science has no answer for these things.

We don't know what every chromosome does but we fill in the gaps as we go along, with assumptions made based upon the evidence available.

That is my point. Evolution is a guess. Science is about concrete, repeatable experiments that show results. There isn't even a fossil record to base evolution on, yet we teach it to our children like it's a duh-ralph fact. Doesn't that seem silly to you?

Religion is very natural, no matter what you believe. People manipulate and preach their own ideals in the hopes of gaining comrades, be it Christian, Islam, or Atheism. So, you say the Bible has been manipulated by people over the years, and that is certainly true for some translations (it's why some pastors read original texts in their original languages). But who's to say that science books have not been manipulated by scientists?

I was observing a debate one time between an evolutionist and a scientist who believes in intelligent design. The person on the side of intelligent design was giving real examples of evidence of design vs evolution. The only argument the evolutionist had was, "Well science doesn't even acknowledge that because we don't think it is scientific." Now, for the record, intelligent design speaks to any idea of creation, not just the traditional Genesis version. You could say we were placed here by any kind of strange superior being. But science has completely disavowed this idea. My question is, on what grounds? What has been observed and studied enough to bring about this conclusion?

What scientists need to be able to do is humble themselves enough to say, "We don't know."

Doom 3 was most definitely a terrible game and a pitiful disgrace to the Doom brand name.

The comment that said Painkiller was far more like Doom than Doom 3 was, was spot-on.

Doom was about fast run & gun action, not the "crawl and gun" sleep-inducing gameplay of Doom 3. That is nothing at all like Doom. In addition to have nothing to do with Doom, that sort of gameplay was entirely killed by being unfitting too for the 'survival horror' genre via being way too ludicrously repetitive. Survival horror games which are as slow-paced as Doom 3 aren't anywhere near so mind-numbingly repetitive as Doom 3's 'gameplay', monsters, and environments are.

Go into a room, blast the 1 Imp in front of you and the two Imps that spawn behind you for the 500th time by the time a few hours into the game, then go to the next room and repeat another few thousand times til the game is over. That is supposed to be fun?

The 'gameplay' in Doom 3 was barely better than the 'gameplay' in Dragon's Lair. To even call Doom 3 a "game" is to use the word game in a very generous sense.

Doom 3 is a tech demo, nothing more.

The comment that said the "monsters in the closet" thing only happens 10 times in Doom 3 is ridiculous. Almost every single room in Doom 3 is the exact same thing repeated ad nauseum for 20 - 30 hours.

This comment was edited on Aug 6, 10:30.

Even scientists in their descriptions accept the idea of intelligent design because the truth is there is no other option.

Erm.... lol?

Evolution has so many holes and mathematical flaws it's frightening that it is taught as fact.

Creatures evolve - that's a fact. It doesn't matter that certain aspects the evolutionary chain are missing or unknown because it's a jigsaw puzzle, with new information incorporated when it is discovered. We don't know what every chromosome does but we fill in the gaps as we go along, with assumptions made based upon the evidence available. Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of a God (is there anyway a God can ever be disproved?), though it does seem to conflict with some religious beliefs.

In this case, I believe science to be your God, and atheism to be your religion.

Science is a construct that allows us to process evidence into a framework; it tells us about the world around us. It has many conflicting ideas that continue until evidence proves otherwise. Atheism is the disbelief in the existence of a God, typically based on lack of evidence. That's not to say that the Bible doesn't contain many accurate statements supported by evidence - it does - but it's still a book, manipulated and controlled by people over the centuries and containing much that cannot be corroborated with evidence. It many ways you are right that it verges on being a religion itself, I don't dispute that. The difference is that atheism is based on science, which is based on our knowledge of the world around us; it continues to be expanded upon and revised - religion is based upon books. Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code, like the Bible and other religious books, was based on evidence and research of events but contained many other aspects that were simply unproven / unprovable that required a leap of faith. Would you worship The Da Vinci Code? No, so why worship the Bible? Even then, which book do you pick? They can't all be right. This is where religion falls apart for me.

It's like that South Park episode where Cartman goes to the future to get a Nintendo Wii. Perfect satire around the science vs religion debate.

I agree. It demonstrates how dangerous religion is - the belief in something without evidence or reasoning. There was no reasoning behind the different names for the atheists much in the same way that there isn't for religion... it's based on a belief that cannot be proven (or at least not based on the evidence we have). That's not to say that a God doesn't exist but nothing has persuaded me that the Bible is any more worth worshipping than The Da Vinci Code.

I'd appreciate it if someone could explain how one is meant to pick a religion. Why is Christianity more correct that Islam or Hinduism? Even then, how do you pick the many sub-genres of religion with their own difference beliefs? I really don't get it. My understanding is that people are indoctrinated through society or family - I never hear about people researching all the religions and opting for the one with the most evidence supporting it. Atheism is very different, though - my father is agnostic and my mother is Protestant, yet my knowledge of the world around me and the evidence supporting the many different religions has lead me to believe there isn't a God. It's not that I believe there isn't a God but I don't see anything to support one - that's the important difference between religion and atheism. Religion favours belief, atheism favours evidence.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn

More like I'm the atheist trying to use science to demonstrate why you are wrong. There's no absolute proof that God doesn't exist but it's pretty damn obvious to most people.

In this case, I believe science to be your God, and atheism to be your religion.

First, lets explore your logical fallacy. It's called Appeal to Common Practice. Basically, how it works is, if more people do A than B, then A is better than B. Obviously, that does not follow, logically. Therefore, saying that most people don't believe in God therefor there is no God is not a logical statement. It's not even factual, honestly.

Now lets look at the "miracle" of evolution vs the "absurdity" of creationism. I've noticed a very interesting thing when watching animal documentaries on TV. Scientists speak about animals as if they were designed. They actually use that word: designed. How can something 100% natural and born of no matter be designed? Even scientists in their descriptions accept the idea of intelligent design because the truth is there is no other option. Evolution has so many holes and mathematical flaws it's frightening that it is taught as fact.

It's like that South Park episode where Cartman goes to the future to get a Nintendo Wii. Perfect satire around the science vs religion debate.

Since the article on Shacknews shows that Carmack himself realizes that Doom 3 had faults, why are people arguing?

No one is arguing that Doom3 was perfect. Your quote and your conclusion have little relevance. The main point appears to be that Doom 3 wasn't a terrible game, and that Half-Life 2 isn't some messiah of the perfection of the PC. HL2 sold 4 million to Doom3's 3.5 million, at least according to Trivia^W Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best_selling_games#PC so they should both be considered outstanding successes.

This comment was edited on Aug 4, 16:11.

Doom 3 sold well but ID knows they lost some credibility releasing it.

"I cannot remember even a single character from Doom 3, not even the name of the character you play. "


hmmm I don`t need to know or even care to know a name. That helps me immerse into my character better. It is easier to be ME, than to imagine I am some game writers character.

I don`t even need some drawn out boring story. All I need is a world to be immersed into, and some missions. Never ever understood why game devs and playas get so wrapped up in that stuff. They pay big money to game writers, and their stories are usually what? Badly done rips of movie ideas, that I don`t care about anyways. lol

This comment was edited on Aug 3, 21:40.

I cannot remember even a single character from Doom 3, not even the name of the character you play.

I think it was Fred, or possibly Frank. Don't quote me on that.

Well when you have 95% of people believing in a God

Believing in lots of different Gods.

and over half of the scientist pointing to intelligent design

Absolute nonsense. Not only that but the more intelligent the person the less likely it is they believe in God.

Get your heads out of the ape books they teach in school and think for yourselves for a min

Yes, but which God should I pick? People that grow up in Muslim areas tend to choose Islam and people that grow up in Christian areas pick Christianity, so it seems that the correct God depends on where you're born. And then there are all the sub-denominations: catholic, protestant, baptist, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Then there are all the glaring errors, like Adam & Eve or Noah's Ark. Most religious people I know haven't investigated Islam or Jehovah's Witnesses or many of the other religions so how can they possibly make a fair assessment? Not only that but the God in the bible sounds pretty vengeful... I have no interest worshipping such an entity, even if he / it is all powerful.

So religion comes down to people making a "gut decision" about which religion is right or indoctrination through family or social groups. Neither of which strike me as a good way to base your entire moral structure on. Not only that but religion has been responsible for so many wars - clearly something is a bit off when they supposedly all preach tolerance and understanding. Don't even get me started on organised religion - I'll all for people having personal faith but when you involve money and have religious leaders that can influence politics and speak on behalf of their follows then it gets VERY worrying.

People are free to be muppets... I'm fine just eating cake.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn

Sure you know there is a 95% chance the next encounter is stuff you can easily kill, but you are still on edge.

Why would I be on edge if I know that I can easily kill anything that is dumb enough to attack me..?

I was never a DOOM fan from way back. Had never played any of the early DOOMs. But, I gotta say DOOM 3 was 1 I had to try. The game made me dread to keep playing it. But I eventually completed it. And it rocked for me accept for 2 things.

1: it was totally LAMER how ID had the flashlight balanced, or in this case unbalanced. Everything in the future is .... futuristic, accept for flashlight batteries? lol
2: I prefer more freedom of movement. And more wide open spaces.

Otherwise, DOOM 3 was great.

Well when you have 95% of people believing in a God and over half of the scientist pointing to intelligent design, I think that the evidence points to the fact that there is a good chance that there is a God:) Get your heads out of the ape books they teach in school and think for yourselves for a min:)So before you go off thinking that there is no evidence to support the bible, think again! You either will believe in God or you will not. I pray that you do!
http://www.creationevidence.org/
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

If you would die tomorrow...what then? John 3:16
God gave man dominion--the pains you see are because of our decisions--not His!

it seems like everyone agrees that Ravenholm was one of the best parts of the game, an opinion that I share

Actually, I wasn't that bothered by Ravenholm myself... it was great that it changed the pace and gameplay style but it came across a bit cliched to me, with your typical survival horror eccentric recluse guiding you through the level. It also seemed a bit reliant on gimmicks (traps, climbing up drainpipes, fire, gravity gun / spinning discs, etc).

That argument made no sense. If you expect a monster to pop up around the next corner then you're waiting for him to appear, and if you don't know where the enemy is in quake3 it's in the same way suspenseful. I'm pretty sure turing around 180 to blast the monster that just popped up behind you qualifies as twitch gameplay.

Twitch gameplay is about run-and-gun gameplay like Quake 3 - it's about reflexes. You're describing horror gameplay, which is about making you jump. Doom 3 is not twitch gameplay.

The driving seemed poor compared to actual driving games

I think "poor" is simply wrong - it was still enjoyable and relevant in context of the game. It's like the RPG elements in Oblivion / STALKER - they weren't anywhere near as deep as hardcore RPGs but they still greatly contributed to the experience. Obviously a standalone racing game is going to be better for driving because that's the core gameplay mechanic, whereas any game that combines different gameplay types has to make compromises.

The acting failed to grab my attention, despite any character development I failed to remember many of the characters

Did you forget any of the main characters? Alyx, Eli Vance, Barney, Dog, even Gordon Freeman (who didn't even have to say anything)? All well acted, well rounded characters. I cannot remember even a single character from Doom 3, not even the name of the character you play.

I fail to see what science has to do with general consensus.

Nothing. You're confusing two point. My point about science was that there is clear reasoning behind saying Half-Life 2 is a better game - whether acting, plot, variation in gameplay, AI, atmosphere, visuals and so on. The point about Metacritic was that critics and gamers alike rate HL2 significantly higher than Doom 3. General consensus is only one part of the equation, though, and shouldn't be taken on its own.

Different people like different things.

Indeed. And that is fine. Doom 3 was about not knowing what was coming next, about conserving ammo, about being careful in the dark, about confined spaces and scary monsters - I can fully understand why someone would prefer that style of gameplay. My point I was trying make - whether I succeeded or not - was more about the quality of each game than... I believe HL2 better achieved what it set out to do than Doom 3, something I see supported by reviews and the opinions of gamers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Founder of the "I Hate Smiley Fitz" society

Remember: Riley has autism. He has trouble communicating, and in an overstimulating
environment, he can get frightened and run away, leaving his parents frantic. - Auburn

It really boils down to it being "cool" to hate Doom 3 and like Half Life 2. A lot of people are just pointing out the stupidity of berating Doom over being linear and then praising Half-Life 2 which has the exact same "flaws."

Some of the most common criticisms about Doom 3 are either pointless nit picking or failing to understand design choices. The flashlight was done to create tension, you can see or you can shoot. You never feel on edge with HL2's monsters, you feel on edge with Doom 3's monsters and environment much more. You are going around without a gun (flashlight out) and get a lot of audio cues. Sure you know there is a 95% chance the next encounter is stuff you can easily kill, but you are still on edge. Some of the best moments in Doom 3 were turning a corner, getting jumped by an imp, and blasting it into oblivion with a shotgun on reaction before I fully realized what happened or running out of ammo and clubbing something to death with the flashlight over reloading.

Half Life 2 had its moments (Ravenholm was a brilliantly designed level) but also was fairly linear and some areas just really didn't draw me in. The experience was enjoyable, but not enough to make me even care one bit about HL2: Episodes 1 and 2.

I enjoyed Doom 3 and expansion, Half Life 2 and episodes, FEAR, Prey, and Quake 4. But I haven't replayed any of them except Half Life 2 (which I have replayed 5+ times). That says something about the strength of the game (it seems like everyone agrees that Ravenholm was one of the best parts of the game, an opinion that I share).

Since the article on Shacknews shows that Carmack himself realizes that Doom 3 had faults, why are people arguing?

This comment was edited on Aug 3, 11:41.

I liked Doom 3 and Quake 4 and Prey.

Really, I did. They were all fun. Q4 was my favorite.

I'd actually pay for a Q4 single player addon.

I just paid $19.99 for San Andreas. It can't be that bad...