Spore, a secret creationist propaganda
We've been all waiting for Spore, the latest game from the creators of Sims and SimCity for years. When it finally arrived I was glad to see there was a Mac version of it. Being a big fan of simulation games and the theory of evolution in general, I quickly grabbed a copy of it.
The installation was easy, the animations are stunning and the game play is relatively easy to figure out thanks to the in-game hints. The story of the game is really compelling. You need to evolve a microbe to an intelligent species and to develop your character that can conquer the galaxy. The game is divided into 5 distinct stages. Microbial evolution. Conquest of the land. Tribal life. Civilization and finally the space age. You're guiding your same character (or species rather) through all these stages.
There are however fundamental issues with the game if we take a real evolutionary perspective.
In the very beginning the game suggests that life started on your chosen planet by panspermia. In other words the first life form came from another planet by a meteorite. This is an elegant sidestepping of a fundamental question of how life appeared in the first place, which I think would've been great if demonstrated in a game like Spore.
We do have basic understanding of how it may have happened and the game the creators could've generated an imagined rapid sequence of events showing how inorganic matter evolved to a complexity of what we already call life.
But since life began on Earth most probably with panspermia and because the galactic perspective of such a start is compelling in terms of story telling I don't mind this beginning.
From than on, the whole game play hardly follows any evolutionary sense. We have a microbe with a set goal of becoming increasingly more complex. In reality evolution has no such goal or any goal to be precise. It just is with no definite purpose or ending. It's only our human perspective that gives us a false idea that evolution's goal is to create intelligent species. In reality any living organism just tries to survive and simplicity can be a key to success as much as complexity. The success of the microbial world is a demonstration of that. Or plant life as opposed to animal life is another example. In both cases simplicity produced infinitely more life by any means of measure, such as diversity or sheer organic mass. Of course this is a game not a simulation of real events, but the basic premise is wrong from the start.
In Spore's microbial soup your character needs to eat to grow and mate to evolve. When you mate you arrive to a cool tool where you can restyle your microbe to better fit the environment. And, here lies the biggest controversy in my opinion. This kind of remodeling and creation of species is what creationists claim. You're playing God in this game by being able to remodel your character "intelligently" creating a new species that will be better prepared to survive in that environment. You can pick and choose from different eyes, tails, mouth or defense elements to create a new microbe. While this is truly a fun thing to do it teaches a false notion about evolution.
In the real world evolution isn't guided by a being of higher intelligence. Species undergo random mutations that occur due to imperfect duplication of their DNA that is caused mainly by natural cosmic radiation. These random mutations are usually very small. If the mutation is significant, the individual in the vast majority of cases dies before reproducing. Some of these small changes are affecting the individuals survival rate. Over time preferable mutations become part of the species because the individuals holding such mutations will have a greater success of reproducing. This is an extremely slow and gradual process. You don't grow a leg or a set of eyes in one go as the game suggests.
Question is whether the real workings of evolution could've been put into an enjoyable game. If we were to do a real simulation the game would be utterly boring. Watching millions of generations born and die just to see a minuscule change in their physiology is not exactly the definition of a fun game.
One way the game creators could've introduced interactivity into a real simulation would've been to allow the player to change environmental conditions and then monitor how the creatures through a series of failed evolutionary dead-ends finally manage to conquer their new home. SimCity would've been a good precedent to such game play, where you build houses and roads in a specific layout and then observe if the humans populating the city can strive in the created environment. In our case the difference would've been that the humans would've evolved over time. This sort of game play would've been a conceptually more accurate demonstration of the core idea of evolution.
In the next stage of the game your creature acquires feet and come out of water. I understand that in the game the creators had to simplify the events, but in reality there is no prerequisite of a species to come ashore to be become more intelligent. It's a bit disappointing that I can't evolve further "intelligently" in water or below ground for example. Or as a more extreme example I can't become a fungi like creature that's 100 meters long or in fact a plant that uses some waste product of other creatures to survive. This game is built from a narrow human perspective. At this stage of the game we become passive observers of one specific path of evolution that happens to continue on land. Spore is a pseudo open ended game like Grand Theft Auto where you are supposedly free to do what you want, as long as you do the preset criminal activities required by the game to go further in the story.
This kind of disconnect from any scientific notions is prevalent later in the game as well. Social science isn't applied at tribal stage, rules of technological evolution isn't considered at the civilization stage. Regarding the space age we don't know what lies ahead, so there is no point in arguing how close the game is to reality.
Bottom line, the game itself is entertaining, worth playing, but it does teach kids the wrong science. It assumes the creationist doctrine is correct, which is dangerous especially in these times when intelligent design is fighting to get into schools masquerading itself as real science.
Now, I wouldn't mind at all if the game wasn't marketed as a game about evolution. I never complained Super Mario brothers physics is inaccurate. ;)
On the other hand, hopefully the game will encourage kids to learn more about evolution. And, to be fair I have to admit, that the game does put forward certain ideas that are correct about the process of evolution like the shared genetic material of all living species.
Buy it for your kids and explain them what's wrong with the game. Play it yourself and create amazing characters. You can even download the free Spore creature creator to get a feel of what it's like to create a new species.
User login
Navigation
Latest critique
Active forum topics
You must be f'in kidding me.
You must be f'in kidding me. Does everything need to be politicized? It's a friggin game, not propaganda. Get over yourself. You narcissism knows no bounds.
Yes, of course I'm kidding
Just to clarify, my opinion posts are always meant to be partly ironic.
someone emailed me...
Haha, it seems creationists refute my claims. They think Spore is trying to destroy their views. I'm confused now. :)
http://antispore.com/
Check the final passages
Check the final passages from the "Bible" at the end of that guys Sept 11th post.
Then, take a look at the adwords to the right. Pretty sure that's a very, very clever website that the owners making a killing from. Problem is, most of the people that have replied to his posts don't seem to have a degree of intelligence between them to work it out.
Unless Rick Astley was in the bible of course, which is possible, he's pretty godly...
I would say...
I would say that Spore really takes a middle-ground. It doesn't portray the world and mankind being created in 7 days, with age, but it does portray the world created with intelligent design. Myself personally, believing that the world was created by God in 7 days find it very interesting that they point out intelligent design. But now for a design question, Did Adam and Eve have a bellybutton?
Very Respectfully,
Anthony
Good point
It does take a middle-ground. Well said.
Not sure about the
Not sure about the bellybutton, but I know for a fact that Eve was the first carpenter. She made Adam's banana stand. :)
"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."
— Frank Zappa
Haha!
I should have that as an email signature. ;)
Can a game be just a game?
Regardless of how the game starts, or what's the theory behind it i don't understand why it has to be compared to reality, can't a game be just a game? why all the logic? it's a game. it's a world of fantastic possibilities, i guess that's what it's meant to be. we already have a world, how we believe it started makes no relevance at all, at the end of the day, it all comes down to the fact that we're just here. Let it be. Thank God for EA and their little fantasy worlds.
Agreed.
I would like to think that just because they go around shooting up people and cars in Grand Theft Auto, that kids don't actually believe that violence like that actually happens? Oh wait, it does happen. EVERY single day.
I guess I can understand Ivan's point. These kids that play these games are extremely impressionable. Supposedly the kids that shot up Columbine HS got their "idea" from a video game. Which one, I don't know. But because these games are so violent in nature, this is why parents are worried about it. So even though these video games seem innocent enough in their role playing sense, a lot of kids take this shit to heart. Sad, but true.
It's up to us as parents to teach our kids what's right and what's wrong, and hope to God that they don't meet up with a Marilyn Manson wannabe and go the other direction in their thinking and their beliefs.
Just my two cents.
--------
"The name's Bond, James Bond."
www.onegirlcreative.com
Actually Columbine was a
Actually Columbine was a result of psychological problems and persistent bullying (both of which can be traced back to bad parenting). Video games have little to no influence on a child who knows better. I played Mortal Kombat in elementary school but never once tried to uppercut someone's head off.
Parents like to blame anything and everything but themselves like movies, music, and video games for tragedies but in the end, you control what your kids watch on TV, play on their consoles, and listen to on their stereos/mp3 players/computers. Last time I checked, a 6th grader can't walk into a store and buy a rated MATURE +17 game, like Grand Theft Auto.
You're absolutely right that we have to teach children what's right and wrong but you don't HOPE to God that your kid doesn't make friends with a Marilyn Manson wannabe, you MAKE SURE they don't by knowing who all their friends are.
Clearly, you aren't a parent
because although my daughter is only 8 years old, I have a friend of a teenager who will completely disagree with your logic that "parents control everything in their teenager's lives." Sorry, but once they hit a certain age, there is only so much you can control aside form chaining them to their bed in the basement.
Their friends, everything are always under scrutiny. Her son was a good kid, and somehow befriended two kids (brothers) who were nothing but trouble. She tried and tried to get him to NOT hang out with these kids, but all it did was push him closer to them, not away from them. That's the reality of it. Luckily, now that he is a freshman in college, and those kids aren't, he is on his way to meeting good, honest kids.
I'm sorry, but yes, at my daughter's age, we as parents can control who they hang out with, watch on TV, play on their little Playstations, etc. but once they're teenagers, and worse—get their driver's license, there is only so much a parent can control.
And BTW, any kid can have access to a video game like GTA—you don't think kids go over to other kids' houses with older siblings? My daughter hung out with a girl last year who had an older brother who was only 11, and was basically given free reign in their household. Scary, but true. Obviously, this year, she is no longer allowed to hang out with that girl any longer.
I would like to see some sort of proof, or documentation substantiating your claim that there hasn't been any direct involvement or responsibility of kids wanting to emulate from their favorite video games. I think your statement is ignorant and misguided. Until you can provide me proof of your claim, I will continue to think you're statement is inaccurate.
My statement of "hoping to God that my kid doesn't hang out with a Marilyn Manson wannabe" was not a literal translation, but only a general comment. Meaning it's not like I am literally sitting at the edge of my bed every night praying to God that I hope my daughter doesn't get involved with a MM wannabe. I meant that you do what you can as a parent, and try your hardest to ensure that the path they choose is the right one, and go from there. There is only so much you as a parent can control.
Wake up.
--------
"The name's Bond, James Bond."
www.onegirlcreative.com
"I have a friend of a
"I have a friend of a teenager who will completely disagree with your logic that "parents control everything in their teenager's lives."
- I like how you threw "teenager's" in there and said that it was my logic when clearly, I never stated that.
"Luckily, now that he is a freshman in college, and those kids aren't, he is on his way to meeting good, honest kids."
- Ha! Good, honest kids in college. Right. That depends on which school he goes to. College is the ultimate test to see if your kid was raised right or not. Here, you really don't have control.
"but once they're teenagers, and worse—get their driver's license, there is only so much a parent can control."
- There is only so much you can control when your kid is a teenager, no argument there. Good thing I was talking about the age group that still has difficulty differentiating video games from reality, like elementary school students. I mean, by the time they reach middle school, they should know the difference, right?
You were talking about how video games can influence a kid to the point where he/she can actually kill. What I'm saying is that kids who've been a victim of psychological abuse for years have little to no influence from violent video games because they garnered violent tendencies from wanting to harm their abusive peers, not because they were wondering how fun shooting people could be. No normal kid plays a shooting game, grabs a gun, and starts shooting people. Oh, and if your kid is out of control by the time they drive, you've failed as a parent.
"I would like to see some sort of proof, or documentation substantiating your claim that there hasn't been any direct involvement or responsibility of kids wanting to emulate from their favorite video games."
- I never made that claim so I don't have to. I know kids mimic what they think is cool. There's even a case where an older kid accidentally killed a younger one from emulating wrestling. My argument is that a kid that knows better knows how far to take it, as in NOT to jump several feet in the air to land on a smaller child with his entire body. With or without video games, accidents happen. They did in the past and they will continue to in the future. People die from riding horses yet horses get no blame. Blaming video games just happen to be easier than to take responsibility.
"And BTW, any kid can have access to a video game like GTA—you don't think kids go over to other kids' houses with older siblings?"
- I hoped that you wouldn't bring this up but knew you would. First of all, kids under a certain age can't even figure out how to play GTA. Secondly, if your kid likes GTA enough to watch or play it at a friend's house, they'll ask you to buy it for them so you'd know what he/she's been playing. And if they don't ask for it and if the game has had that big of an influence on him/her, you'd be able to notice a change in their behavior. This is assuming your kid isn't stupid enough to actually want to kill people for fun. My little cousins were explosed to Diablo II under age by their other cousins. Still, they knew better than to throw axes at people, even when they were under age. Surprise!
"My statement of "hoping to God that my kid doesn't hang out with a Marilyn Manson wannabe" was not a literal translation, but only a general comment."
- Thank you for explaining the obvious, as I knew what you meant. What I meant is that parents don't go far enough keep their kids out of trouble. Those Columbine kids were making pipe bombs a year before the shootings and their parents weren't even around to notice it or worse, they knew and did nothing.
You wake up.
Like I said, you clearly are NOT a parent
therefore, I will not turn this into a pissing contest, because clearly you like to have the last word, which is fine.
I don't need to argue with you, nor do I need to even dignify your response with a comment. They're ignorant and I refuse to continue with this, because this was not the intention of this particular thread.
If you feel the need to argue about something that really has nothing to do with this thread, then perhaps you should start your own blog in which you can discuss your opinions there. But here at CB, I would like to think that we're here to discuss graphic design. Not whether or not we're doing our job as parents by not allowing our kids to play video games and the like.
I see you're new here at CB, and welcome, however please be a little conscientious when going off on your rants.
I'm done here.
--------
"The name's Bond, James Bond."
www.onegirlcreative.com
I could've sworn you went
I could've sworn you went off topic first. Something about a video games giving kids the idea to kill?
For someone who claims that I'm ranting, you sure as hell did a lot of it yourself. In fact, my entire "rant" to you is mostly me pointing out your contradictions. Did your pride get hurt? If it was, I apologize.
As for my comments to Mr. Ivan, he claimed to have enjoyed it. He had every power and right to delete my account and comments but didn't. Why don't you suggest that he prevent me from commenting if you're that annoyed?
Have a nice day.
This quote is so fitting and true.
Before I got married I had six theories about bringing up children; now I have six children, and no theories. ~John Wilmot
My point exactly!
--------
"The name's Bond, James Bond."
www.onegirlcreative.com
Yes, but they are marketing
Yes, but they are marketing it as a game about evolution, which it isn't. If they were saying "Play God" in this game I would not be complaining.
Doomed!
Any game where they are desperate enough to make a Mac version too is doomed to failure!
http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com
"Bottom line, the game
"Bottom line, the game itself is entertaining, worth playing, but it does teach kids the wrong science. It assumes the creationist doctrine is correct,..."
The wrong science? So evolution is the right science? While it is true that if you broke us down to our basic elemental composition we'd be a mass of inorganic matter, like Carbon, Oxygen, and Hydrogen. But when you can reverse the process with nothing but billions of years, sun light, lightning and MAYBE some fire, then I'll say evolution is the "right" science. Oh, and you can't exist yet either.
"...which is dangerous especially in these times when intelligent design is fighting to get into schools masquerading itself as real science."
What does that even mean?
"Yes, but they are marketing it as a game about evolution, which it isn't. If they were saying "Play God" in this game I would not be complaining."
I'm pretty sure they're not marketing the game as educational either.
Yes, evolution is correct.
Yes, evolution is correct. Creationism is not. It's very simple.
We can't yet simulate the formation of DNA from inorganic matter. So far. But we will get there most probably. But, that's a totally different issue. Evolution isn't about how life appeared, but it's about how it evolved. And, this evolution can be demonstrated and it's apparent all over us. You just need to look.
The simplest example is breeding of dogs. You can change the characteristics of a certain breed within a few generations by selecting manually by a certain trait.
Nature does the very same thing but over much longer time without any deliberation. If the weather gets colder in an certain area dogs with longer and thicker fur will survive better thus over generations creating a long fur version of the species. This happens within hundreds of years. When you look at longer time scale like tens of thousands of years you can change the dog to look completely different, because not just the fur but every other part of the animal will adapt to a colder climate. On even longer timescales your animal will undergo dramatic transformation if its surrounding forces it to do so creating an animal we wouldn't even call a dog anymore, because it would be so different and it would not be able to interbreed with the original dog. I know long time scales are hard to grasp for humans, but the theory remains true and with a little effort you can grasp it.
Regarding the sentence you didn't understand. Creationism and intelligent design are not real science, because they are not based on observation or evidence. They are based on the bible, which is a great historic tale, but isn't science either. So basically creationism is trying to masquerade the religious teaching as science, which is false. I don't mind alternative religions, ideas, etc, but they should not be called differently from what they are, because that's cheating people.
No, they are not marketing it as educational. You're right. This is why my argument is a stretch and I meant it as half joking.
Creationism not real science?
You are talking about micro-evolution and theorizing that if you add billions of years to the equation then you would could "prove" macro-evolution. But according to science, we have never seen evidence of a change from one species to another species. Micro-evolution is proven by science. Macro-evolution is a theory that has not been proven, otherwise "Evolution" would be called the FACT of evolution, not the theory of evolution.
Both the theory of Evolution, and the theory of Creation, coming from a scientific view, are both theories with many supporting findings. And if you look into them both, without bias, you would not declare a statement like one is fact and the other is just religious hooplah when many great scientists still debate over the topic for the very reason that neither are able to be proven as a fact.
Needless to say, a game is a game, and I can't wait to try it as I'm a big Sims fan.
Very Respectfully,
Anthony
We can agree to disagree,
We can agree to disagree, but allow me to correct a few points you made.
The difference between micro and macro evolution is that in macro evolution the species are different enough that they can't interbreed anymore. There is a tipping point in being different enough not to be able to do it simply. There is no fundamental difference.
There is ample evidence that macro evolution has occurred in the past. The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.
There are tens of thousands of supporting finding for the theory of evolution. And none for creation. I'm looking into this issue without bias continuously, it would be discovery of the century if anyone could provide proof for creation and I would be more than interested and open to accept it.
On the issue of theory versus fact. I feel uncomfortable arguing this as I'm not a native English speaker, but you need to look it up that in science terms theory doesn't mean that it's something being argued about.
In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.
Finally many scientist disputing aren't many at all, but regardless this is not an argument pro or contra, since many people once believed the earth is flat. That didn't make it true.
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.
Let me make it clear that
Let me make it clear that the idea of evolution doesn't completely evade me. I grasp the the concept of mutation just fine. We see it happen in less complex lifeforms all the time, like bacteria. So I don't discard evolution entirely. But your analogy about dogs is flawed because dogs don't voluntarily stay in unpreferable weather conditions to see if they can adapt to it. They try to migrate first to more preferable areas and only evolve if they are subject to changing environments forcibly and over a LONG time. And if we all evolved from the oceans, how did dogs with thick fur come to exist in the first place?
People like to say human embryos have gills and try to use that as proof of our aquatic ancestry. Then why aren't we in underwater cities? Why didn't we evolve in the ocean, which covers over 70% of the Earth? Why don't dolphins have underwater cities? Because they have no thumbs? How was it that a mutation didn't occur with them where they grew thumbs? How is it that older species on Earth are less developed than we are?
I don't believe everything that creationism teaches as fact either but evolution does not prove everything, Mr. Ivan.
Yes, I understand that it's
Yes, I understand that it's extremely hard to grasp evolution because of the time scale and the complexity of lifeforms and their interaction with their environment. You asked great questions.
Regarding the dogs analogy. They will not try to migrate, because they wouldn't know they can, right? But even if they will not all of them will and yes the conditions have to change for a long time.
We did all come from a common ancestry from the see and dogs with thick fur came to life gradually from earlier life forms through a very long and gradual process. They didn't just pop into existence as creationists would claim.
I heard that the development of embrios somewhat resembles our evolution, but I don't think it's used as proof for evolution. I don't know why it happens. I need to read up on it.
Why don't we have underwater cities? Because we happen to be in one specific branch of our evolution which resulted in us. It's not like evolution has to produce intelligent lifeforms in the sea as well.
Dolphins didn't create underwater cities yet. We didn't create cities for hundreds of thousands of years either. We lived in caves in conditions very close to other primates or mammals. It's only our recent history that showed spectacular development. Also, we built cities because we needed them for our survival. Towns help humans to have more babies to a point, because of the division of labor.
Dolphins are not forced to build towns, the life in the sea is relatively safer than on the land because of the constant temperatures and shield from environmental effects. But it may turn out on long term that division of labor pays them well and they will indeed build towns.
Division of labor results in towns in many species, for example ants live in extremely elaborate castle towns. Much more elaborate than our ancestors just a few thousand years ago.
What do you mean by older species? All living species today are the same age, we all share a common ancestry, right? Do you mean to ask why species that are unchanged for longer time are less developed than we are? Because they live in an environment that didn't force them to change and become more complex. Remember, evolution doesn't have a goal of creating intelligent species. If the environment is unchanged, like the seas pretty much are, there is not evolutionary push to evolve. Also, remember that evolution can go backward as they found with certain animals who gradually lost their eyesight after living in caves or underground for very long time. It's by luck we were in situations that forced us to develop intelligence that we have.
Also, the rate of development is relative. How do you measure how developed a certain species are. If you're not putting the criteria by human standards we are pretty much losers. Microbes or plants rule the world by organic mass and diversity. We are not the largest animal either. We don't have the best eye sights. We lack a lot of sensory inputs that other animals have, such as detection of infrared, ultraviolet rays, detection of radioactivity, sonar location, detection of electric and magnetic fields and many other things we don't even know about yet. We also not the socially most developed species, again ants or bees are much more organized, efficient and caring.
One area where I think we are excelling is language. We do have the most complex language I think, which enabled us to learn from our ancestors who do not live anymore, which accelerated the gathering of knowledge. This is what enabled us to overcome our otherwise not so competitive body build. In effect we survive thanks to our brain power.
That's why knowledge and science is so important. That's why religious doctrine that says, don't look deeper into nature, just stay content believing that God did it all and he looks after is dangerous. If the earth happens to be destroyed in the future by any natural or unnatural cause our only hope is science to get us out of trouble, like it did numerous times in the past.
Even outside of science, human intellect prevailed over global issues so far. Humans invented democracy that gives us a relatively more peaceful existence. I want to give credit to religious prophets too for standing up against violence and trying to persuade people to be more social, they did they good part in a long history of human social development by nudging it to the right direction.
Shuffling Across the Chessboard of Life
Holy cow has this thread ever evolved!
But overall, it's the age-old question: How did we come to be here? How did we come to be?
My scientist husband and a devout Christian aunt once had a very heated "talk" over this one. She literally laughed at his belief in evolution rather than accept her faith in God. He told her that she had no right to scoff at his theory, nor he hers. Another time the "talk" was between my evolutionist sister armed with her Fisher King theory and a friend of mine who is a devout Presbytarian. It got ugly: my sister called my friend a bible thumper, my friend called my sister a blasphemous atheist, and I called a cab.
Basically, the point I'm trying to make is that not all people will ever see eye-to-eye in their creation beliefs, as no ONE can know the answer.
And will we ever?
Check.
"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."
— Frank Zappa
it's a game. not a political
it's a game. not a political statement or a religious event, it's a game. just like simcity didn't teach you how to be a politician or a bureaucrat, spore doesn't lay stake to a claim on science.
Absolutely they would
Absolutely they would migrate because we see it happen even now. If you clear out all vegetation in a forest, deers aren't going to be standing around a barren wasteland. Or let's say vegetation in a particular region is thinning out over hundreds of years due to climate change. Even still, animals will slowly but surely inhabit areas more suitable for survival, even if by only a few miles a year.
Again, I grasp the idea of evolution just fine. I even use giraffes as an analogy to people who completely discredit evolution. Please stop making the claim that evolution is a difficult theory to understand because it's very simple, as you've said.
But I refuse to believe that a rodent could develop something as sophisticated as sonar and lose eye sight over thousands of years because at some point they were forced to live in a dark environment, unless the mutation of echo location came overnight. Also, if bats evolved from rodents as evolutionists claim, then at some point, you would've had a half bat, half rat type creature who can neither run fast or fly high, making them suitable prey to become extinct.
And yes I was talking about animals like sharks and crocodiles, among others, when referring to species who have existed longer than we have. No doubt the oceans have remained relatively unchanged for millions of years but that doesn't mean evolution doesn't occur because mutation is RANDOM in the natural world. No one can explain why a random mutation happens unless it's one we've forcibly caused. We just know the aftermath of the occurance.
And you talk like all creationists abhor the idea of technologically advancing, which makes no sense because then none of them would be using computers. Don't make that claim either. You have a point about science being the only saving grace from a natural or unnatural disaster that could wipe out humanity. Sure as hell glad that we didn't make nuclear/biological weapons, pollute our environment, destroy ecosystems, and partake in devastating wars with each other. Oh, wait.
You also have a point in the fact that creationism has no physical evidence because it's a belief based on faith. The only evidence I can give you is that billions of people follow a religion. By the way, do you celebrate Christmas?
I think our positions are
I think our positions are pretty close at this point. I would love to continue this conversation in person.
I do celebrate Christmas, and it's fun! :)
Thanks for being so civil and communicative. It's a pleasure to discuss such interesting issues with people like you.
Thank you for being
Thank you for being respectable. Though we share different beliefs, at least we can agree to disagree with no malcontent.
"I do celebrate Christmas, and it's fun! :)"
How convenient. >=P
Atheists can love and share.
Atheists can love and share. You don't have to be a religious person to acquire these traits that define the Xmas spirit or any other holiday. I don't have to believe believe Jesus really did rise from the dead and such stories to be true to be able to put up a tree and get together with my loved ones. We also celebrate birthdays, the towel day, may day and many other non religious events. I even used to celebrate Eid the muslim religious holiday with my muslim friends while I worked in the middle-east.
I think it's important to enjoy life while we are alive, because most probably there is no afterlife. Or if there is I will end up in hell anyway for being a non-believer, so why waste my life. :)
I just had to ask to see
I just had to ask to see what kind of response I'd get. By no means am I trying to monopolize anything solely for those who share my beliefs. This will be my last comment on this site, as the general consensus by the members here for me is negative. >=]
And just to clarify, I've been coming to this site for months. I've only recently made an account to comment, as I normally don't express my opinions online.
Good luck in your future endeavors, Mr. Ivan.
That's too bad. You struck
That's too bad. You struck me as an intelligent debater. I was looking forward to future discussions on design.
"Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible."
— Frank Zappa
sooo... if billions of
sooo... if billions of people do it, it must be right? even if they can't agree on what "it" is? maybe the fact that they're willing to kill over deciding who's "it" is really "it" should convince people?
that's not much of an argument. billions of people do and believe all kinds of foolish things every day. 1000 years ago, nobody thought the earth was round, that didn't make it flat.
i have no problem with people believing in religion. more power to them. but i don't share the "faith," no matter how many billions do. and teaching something based on faith to the masses as if it was science is disingenuous (not to mention done with an agenda of conversion). teach it as faith, i'm fine with that. i'm not going to tell people they can't believe in their religion. but teach it as what it is. that's a religion class, not a science class.
"sooo... if billions of
"sooo... if billions of people do it, it must be right?"
- I said it was the ONLY evidence I can give, not that it was unrefutable.
"even if they can't agree on what "it" is? maybe the fact that they're willing to kill over deciding who's "it" is really "it" should convince people?"
- What?
"that's not much of an argument. billions of people do and believe all kinds of foolish things every day. 1000 years ago, nobody thought the earth was round, that didn't make it flat."
- Yeah, astronomists of that time period were wrong. What about it? Are you saying we shouldn't trust astronomists of this time period? I can't do that, sorry.
"i have no problem with people believing in religion. more power to them. but i don't share the "faith," no matter how many billions do. and teaching something based on faith to the masses as if it was science is disingenuous (not to mention done with an agenda of conversion). teach it as faith, i'm fine with that. i'm not going to tell people they can't believe in their religion. but teach it as what it is. that's a religion class, not a science class."
- I don't remember asking you to convert and yet, here you are throwing useless, convoluted sentences my way. Who's trying to convert who? I also never stated that religion should be taught as science and if you think all religious people think that way, you are ignorant. I merely implied that I embrace both. Don't take what I said out of context.
Wow, this debate's almost as
Wow, this debate's almost as pointless as the one that tries to link Pokemon with devil worship. I could argue with creationists all day long but Ivan seems to be doing a great job of delivering a structured argument. A lot of grown adults still seem to believe in the fairy stories we've been telling our kids for thousands of years to instill a sense of morality and right and wrong. That, frankly, terrifies me.
Back to Spore. It's a game at the end of the day, and not a very good one when you compare it to other RTS such as Civilization, Populous, Age of Empires etc. It tries to mix a couple of genres that don't really sit well together.
Don't get me wrong, I tried to like Spore but it under delivered. The game just seems unfinished. I'm sure this'll be rectified in the upcoming myriad of expansion packs though, good old EA ;o)
This is why I'm Agnostic.
This is why I'm Agnostic. All this talk is boring. Can we just critique the animations already? ;)
Yeah for Pokie
Personally I'm a creationist but that's beside the point here. There are some times when the phrase "let's not talk politics or religion" rings true. This is one of those times.
I'm not sure if Creativebits is a platform for religious or political discussion, if so I'd rather find another design community. I'm here to talk design and Mac stuff; not to insult or get insulted based on my beliefs.
I happen to be an atheist,
I happen to be an atheist, but I don't want to insult anybody with different beliefs. I think it's great to have people with different beliefs being able to discuss design. Imagine how dull design would be if all of us believed in the very same things. The diversity of international forums is what makes them interesting.
Absolutely!
No offence taken. I dig(g) CB.
How did this thread turn into a God vs. ANYTHING???
--------
"The name's Bond, James Bond."
www.onegirlcreative.com