Nerdsy

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="Navy"]God what's the matter with you people?![/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]They're just using freedom of speech.[/color]

[color=deeppink]Ah, I see. Uh, the Ethan Haas sites are unrelated, as stated by JJ Abrams. However, there's some speculation that [url]http://www.slusho.com[/url] is part of the viral campain. I haven't see too much there, although the history sounds slightly ominous if you look at it right.[/color]

[color=deeppink]This is probably going to be my last post on the subject; I've sort of run out of new things to say. Also, I actually conceded defeat two posts ago, heh.[/color] [quote name='Retribution'][size=1]On Occam's Razor: I don't deny its use or validity, I'm just not sure if it's applicable in this debate. I feel like it's being used as a crutch to explain that which we do not currently understand. Again, I point to a caveman's perception of lightening as "Created by a higher power" versus our modern understanding of the very complex back story that plays into it. Occam's Razor would have us believe that lightening is created by Zeus, when this is not true.[/size][/quote] [color=deeppink]Originally I was just throwing out Occam's Razor as a small boost to my argument. The crux of my argument rests on it the complex nature of the biosphere, while saying "Oh, and it also fits Occam's Razor."[/color] [quote]I ask the question rhetorically, really, only to point out that intelligent really fails to deliver on a concrete level. It's an untestable theory. We will never be able to confirm nor deny it, simply because it's entirely speculative. Again, I will concede that "pure science" has yet to yield a better explanation for the creation of the universe. However, "pure science" has put forward some very reliable explanations on how our world is structured. This "pure science" is directly responsible for profound steps forward (modern medicine for example). I cannot say with certainty what intelligent design has yielded.[/quote] [color=deeppink]I really don't think it's an untestable theory; it is not unfeasible that a designer would leave behind some evidence of their work. Perhaps we have no way of testing it [i]now[/i], but I don't think it's outlandish that our abilities as a race may increase one day, and suddenly that hypothesis is testible.[/color] [quote]Maybe we're not understanding one another because I'm interpreting intelligent design to be a continuous process that guides all our actions/developments and you're using it as a term to define the initial creation of the universe?[/quote] [color=deeppink]I interpret inelligent design as meaning some being had a hand in our creation, whether by making us from mud or messing with our genes so we evolved a certain way. I brought up the Big Bang theory as an example of something that is currently unverifiable and equally speculative that is still taught in mandatory classes, not because I though intelligent design meant initial creation of the universe.[/color] [quote]Divinity and science are more or less diametrically opposed by nature. The general idea is that humans have limited knowledge because we are so small compared to the higher power(s), and nothing we can do will ever begin to scratch the surface of this greater reality. :p[/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]I don't really buy into that, though. Neither do some religions, actually; Buddha taught that the Hindu gods were indeed divine, but they weren't really important or "unknowable."[/color]

[color=deeppink]It might help to know what games he [i]has[/i]. Although I'd totally un-recommend Dark Cloud 1.[/color]

[quote name='vegeta rocker']Though if you look it up on IMDB the creature is called Parasite.[/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]I can't find it on there. Where exactly is it? I should also point out the IMDB is edited by the userbase, so even if it's there, that's complete hearsay.[/color]

[quote name='Sesshomarufan'] 5. Kill Bill volume 1 and 2-[/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]I think a movie should have been realeased at [i]least[/i] more than five years ago for it to count as an "old movie." This list will be in the order I think up themovies, not the order I enjoy them. 1. The Neverending Story - because it is one of the best moives evar. I love it to death. 2. The Princess Bride - It's completely awesome. 3. Labyrinth - David Bowie + Jim Henson = a dream come true. 4. Batman: The Movie - Because some days you just can't get rid of a bomb. 5. Toys - No one I know has ever see this movie, except for this one person who I forced to watch it with me. He loved it. This is probably my favorite Robin William's movie. Oh, and DB: There were four Python movies. Or did you forget? ; )[/color]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1]Really quick; it's always a pleasure debating you, Nerdsy. Now onward![/size][/quote] [color=deeppink]Back at ya.[/color] [quote]Fair enough, but I think it's also important to take into account that the simplest solution isn't necessarily the most valid. Just as it is simpler to say "lightening is created by god" rather than take into account the vast and complicated dynamics that go into creating a bolt... it doesn't make the simpler solution true simply because it is simpler. Then again, I haven't researched Occam's Razor, I admit.[/quote] [color=deeppink]I'll be the first to say that Occam's Razor isn't proof, but it is a valid scientific principle. It's also somewhat subjective, as opinions on what "simple" is can vary, so it's tricky. However, when trying to decide among two equally plausible hypotheses (in this case, random chance versus planned), it's currently the best way of deciding which one is true. I must also point out that a solution isn't necessarily true just because there's a great deal of evidence pointing to it, or because there's a consensus among scientists or whatnot. Everything we know could be completely off base, but that's neither here nore there.[/color] [quote]Alright, I admit the big bang isn't solid in any respect. However if we forsake that and observe the rest of creation in search of an intelligent designer, where is your proof? There simply is nothing to back the notion aside from the idea that something this complex must have come from a higher power.[/quote] [color=deeppink]There's a few others. The one most rooted in science is the argument from precision (for lack of knowledge of it's real name), stating that life could not come about unless there were [i]exact[/i] conditions, which happened. There are a few more, but they're less scientific and more heavily philosophical and I'd rather not become known as "The new Mitch." Leave that role to Fasterik. : P[/color] [quote]I thought that most, if not all religion was engineered around the premise that a follower has to have faith because the higher power is unable to be seen. If this is true, science cannot touch it.[/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]And you're going to accept that without any evidence? That's not very scientific of you, Retri. ; )[/color]

[quote name='Sara'][color=#db2007]Yeah, but as far as I can tell, your town consists of ten people... =p[/color][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]Twenty, last time we had a head count.[/color]

[quote name='Sesshomarufan']The times they have tried to implement "story" into rythym games, it has mucked up the game very badly. Case in point, DDR Mario Mix. Why would I wanna have a dance fight with Bowser when I can throw him into lava by his tail? [/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]Counterpoint: Gitaroo Man. I think, to a lesser extenet, Guitar Hero also counts. While not a full on story, it does a good job of illustrating the rise from garage band to full-on rock gods.[/color]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1]Not really, unless you are to take gravity for being a higher power. There?s no way to know, much like evolution.[/size][/quote] [color=deeppink]When I said "in this case," I meant intelligent design vs evolution, not gravity vs the will of God.[/color] [quote]This is entirely subjective and totally reliant upon one?s perspective of a higher power. Evolution happening without the added complication of god is simpler than evolution happening with the added complication of god. But if you alter your opinion on how all this happened (none of which is cast in stone) then you?ll reach a different conclusion. Occam?s Razor is void here, imho.[/quote] [color=deeppink]Let me put it this way; if you were to run into the statues on Easter Island, without any prior knowledge of them, would you simply assume that they came about by random chance? Or would you assume they were built by something? I imagine you would think the latter. You would recognize that such a pattern would not "naturally" come about, due to the complexities involved. I would agree that the simplest hyptohesis isn't "God did it!", but then again, a deity isn't the only possibility.[/color] [quote]What evidence is intelligent design supported by? At this moment, you?re right; we have no bulletproof theory of how the universe was created. We have to settle for what the majority of the scientific community puts their weight behind, not any and every theory of creation (which would all have equal validity). If that happens, it?ll be impossible to cover the topic in a science (or religion) class.[/quote] [color=deeppink]Fair enough, I'll certainly concede to that point. Although I must mention irreducible complexity, like I've mentioned, is evidence that supports it. It's not 100% reliable, nor does it absolutely prove the case, but like I said, neither is the observational data regarding the big bang.[/color] [quote]Isn?t intelligent design by its very nature outside the comprehension of science? I don?t get this point at all.[/size][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]I don't see anything as outside the comprehension of science. I look at something uknown, and I refuse to say "that's unkowable!" We just need time to perfect our techniques. This includes deities.[/color]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1] Now, it’s possible that god does indeed pull us to the earth, but we have no evidence.[/size][/quote] [color=deeppink]But in this case, there [i]is[/i] some evidence in favor of some higher power.[/color] [quote]It its supported by our observational evidence that the universe is still expanding. We can infer from data to reach a vague conclusion that is logically supported by the physical evidence. But what’s more, the explanation still relies on physical phenomena rather than a mystical creator. The idea of a creator introduces an entirely new set of ‘rules’ by which we are governed, none of which have root in science or [veritable] observational evidence. [/quote] [color=deeppink]The observation evidence is only useful if we [b]assume[/b] (similar to assuming that lightning is magic, perhaps?) that the Copernicun Principle is correct. If we are wrong and it's not (there's evidence throwing that into doubt), then such observational data is meaningless. It isn't veritable either, due to us not being able to leave the solar system. Further, life is physical phenomena, so using the intricacies still counts. Hell, I'd even say that intelligent design better satisfies Occam's Razor; what's simpler, something this complex happening by accident, or by design?[/color] [quote]See, that’s the thing. People often assume there is a creator because everything is so intricate. But this is equivalent to assuming lightening is magic, attributing it to a higher power, and calling it a day. We must assume that there is an explicable cause for everything.[/size][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]If we were indeed to "call it a day," then I'd agree with you. However, I'm not saying that we should just say "God did it, true story." We should present it as it stands; a somewhat plausible theory supported by basic evidence. I also don't see this as above research; I certainly agree that there is an explicable cause for everything (for the most part), I just don't see intelligent design as being inexplicable. We may not understand it now, but after applying science to it, then perhaps we will.[/color]

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="Navy"]@ Nerdy: So what? [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]Your entire stance is "but people won't want to do it!" which doesn't cut it. High school is full of people who don't want to be there and learn, but they're forced to anyway. This means that desire (or intrigue) [i]is not a factor.[/i] That's what. I'm curious; if you "knew that," like you claimed, why did you use it as justification for not having a class on religion? As for people fighting to get rid of math... they do actually try, despite it being the "wrong thing to do." I've bourne witness to it. They fail, because they don't have a leg to stand on.[/color]

[quote name='Premonition'][COLOR="Navy"]Actually that would not be a good idea. Someone would object to it.[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]You're never going to have a class that no one objects too. Even ignoring the obvious "everyone hates math!" comments, there are going to be religious people who object and try to fight their way out of science classes because they teach evolution or whatever. That's not much of a reason to quit making some level of science mandatory.[/color]

[color=deeppink]I've never had a problem with the DMV. I'm always in and out in 15 minutes, except for (ironically) the time it was closed and I had to deal with this automated thing in the lobby. I don't know why everyone's always complaining.[/color]

[quote name='Retribution'][size=1] Is it valid to teach a child that gravity is a constant (i.e. it ?exists?) and also teach him that [i]others believe[/i] that god is pulling him to the earth, and that this is a possibility as well? Absolutely not. The job of public education is to teach what we know as scientific fact, not hearsay or unsupported speculation.[/size][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]How many people believe that, though? There's a sizable difference between an extreme (and unlikely) example that never actually comes up and an actual conflict of belief. Something else. The theory of the Big Bang is based largely upon an assumption; the Copernican principle, which has not been proven. Meaning, it is [i]based on faith[/i] with little testable evidence. Should we not teach the Big Bang because it is also based on unsupported speculation? Further, there is such a thing as observational evidence (also something the Big Bang theory is based on and, to a great extent, the theory evolution). People observe the intricacies of life, how complicated and convenient the interactions are, and draw the conclusion that there must be some higher mind at work here.[/color]

[quote name='Mr. Maul'][FONT=Verdana][SIZE=1][COLOR=dimgray]I live in [B]Pendleton[/B], [B]Indiana[/B], which is, geographically, in between [B]taperson[/B]'s and [B]Nerdsy[/B]'s locale of residency. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/quote] [color=deeppink]Haha, wow, we're practically next-door neighbors. For the record, I used to live in Pendleton until semi-recently. Again, it was on the very outskirts; I might as well have been in Lapel, heh.[/color]

[color=deeppink]Pretty much anything made by Bioware is epic. Seriously, those games are [I]massive[/I], and I love the myriad possibilities in them. I don't consider the GTA games epic at all, with the exception of San Andreas. Now, I haven't played the top view ones all the much, so I can't speak on them other than to say that they sucked so bad I coudln't bring myself to play them, but III and Vice City are far from epic-worthy. They're just not that big; they both take place in a (small) city, and they really don't feel like they take that long nor do they feel like they have a large scope. Further, neither of them were all that impressive in terms of either gameplay or the actions taken by the main character. Granted, the final missions in both those games were epic battles, but one epic battle isn't enough to make a video game epic.[/color]

[quote name='The Boss'][color=darkred][size=1] In other words, people think you're a chick.... Haha. Score: Boss 0, Nerdsy -1. I live in Lexington, South Carolina. The only person who lives in SC on all of Otakuboards. I'm actually right next to the capital and have alot of awesome things to do. It's fantastic. Score: Boss 1, Nerdsy -1.[/color][/size][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]Score resets to zero because of DB's admission. Also, -1 to DB for confusing deeppink with[/color] [color=magenta]magenta.[/color]

[quote name='Sara'][color=#db2007]Why would you want to go to McDonald's?[/color][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]Penance?[/color] [quote name='2007DigitalBoy']Many places have a McDonalds on every block i think she was expressing her distance from society.[/quote] [color=deeppink]I assure you, she knows that. ; ) Also. "She?" "Her?"[/color]

[color=deeppink]This thread is a stalker's paradise. Fishers? that's actually ridiculously close to where I live. (How's [i]that[/i] for awkward transitions?) I'm on the outskirts of Anderson, Indiana, which I assure you is much worse because I'm a good twenty minutes away from [i]everything.[/i] Seriously, I have to drive for twenty minutes just to get to a McDonald's.[/color]

[color=deeppink]At this moment? Very, very confused. Also, thirsty, as Guitar Hero always parches me. I'm also wishing very much that I could get to sleep. I honestly hate being awake after midnights.[/color]

[color=deeppink]Why, exactly, are people saying this is Voltron? Admittedly, my memory of Voltron is a little sketchy, but I don't recall it taking place on modern Earth. Also, why the hell is JJ not putting all his time and effort into the new Star Trek movie? For shame! That being said, I am absolutely [i]enthralled[/i] by this thing. [i]I must know what this is![/i] I would also like to see some sort of Lovecraft adaptation... although my knowledge about Lovecraft is mostly second hand, heh. However, I'm really thinking that this is going to be something more original. As for all this Ethan Haas stuff... Clearly this is referring to the character from the failed CBS sitcom [i]The Class[/i], so let's all pour over his dialogue looking for clues! Perhaps this is a film adaptation? Who knows![/color]

[quote name='Sesshomarufan'] And you can't tell me that we didn't all have Hollaback Girl on our Ipod's at one time or another.[/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]******** I can't. For one, I don't own an iPod; second, I [i]loathe[/i] Gwen as a solo artist, I've never had that song on any music player I've had, be it CD or just my computer. I don't even listen to any radio stations that play it. Also, I hate My Chemical Romance, because they butured "Under Pressure."[/color]

[quote name='indifference'][COLOR="Indigo"]None, you don't need an anti-drug if you have no interest in them. Pretty basic and simple really. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [color=deeppink]I suppose it could be said that apathy is our anti-drug. ; )[/color]

[color=deeppink][strike]Drugs are my anti-drug.[/strike] I don't have an anti-drug. I neither purposely do something in place of drugs, nor is there any driving force keeping me from doing them.[/color]