Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
It comes with the territory of being that manly. You live up North, you're automatically part lumberjack, hockey player, and bear wrestler. If you live down South, you just inherit a sweaty back.
@Brett: Didn't technically speaking the very first Europeans that came over to America did so for religious freedom, and thus maybe they are going for that angle? I don't really follow highschool stuff, so I don't know what they're thinking. *shrugs* But trust me, I've seen worse. Universities can have a lot more nutty stuff than that BoE would do. Like teaching that the Holocaust didn't happen, that if you're right wing you're stupid, ect.
EDIT: And technically, all history is bias, it just depends on who's teaching it/the view point of it.
It comes with the territory of being that manly. You live up North, you're automatically part lumberjack, hockey player, and bear wrestler. If you live down South, you just inherit a sweaty back.
@Brett: Didn't technically speaking the very first Europeans that came over to America did so for religious freedom, and thus maybe they are going for that angle? I don't really follow highschool stuff, so I don't know what they're thinking. *shrugs* But trust me, I've seen worse. Universities can have a lot more nutty stuff than that BoE would do. Like teaching that the Holocaust didn't happen, that if you're right wing you're stupid, ect.
EDIT: And technically, all history is bias, it just depends on who's teaching it/the view point of it.
My parents are Christian but I myself am a hardcore atheist. Like, hardcore to the point where I will argue with you no matter what your religion is. At some point I stopped caring about logic and values and part of me just does it to piss people off. Self-restrain is necessary, however, so you won't find me making the first attempt to start a religious debate.
That said, "religious freedom" when the Puritans came to America was something along the lines of "Oh, we're finally free from those oppressive Anglican church members. They were so cruel. Now we're free to live however we want here in this new, free world!" which sounds fine and dandy until you get to the "Unless you aren't one of us in which case you're a slave and in case you act oddly we're going to hang you for witchcraft." part.
Well, I was born in a Christian family, been a Christian all of my life, have seen the evolution theory obviously through college and highschool, and have found it to be seriously lacking. I have no reason to change my view point.
But honestly, religion and schooling will always be in conflict. BoE in Texas attempts to put in Christian view points in everything, Colleges across the country will shun/cut funding to/fire if they aren't on tenure professors if they even mention "Intelligent Design", even if said professors don't believe it and simply have it listed as another theory. Intelligent Design isn't even always religious, you could be talking about aliens creating Earth. *shrugs* It is what it is.
You do realize you guys are talking about the BoE in TEXAS right? You know, that state with old hicks, hardcore conservatives, racist, manifest destiny lovin people? Not surprised religion is pressed into our education subtly.
I messaged Light while I was in the ladder chat and he ignored me, telling me "F you crazy Muslim, I only talk to cool people like Kimchi and Metroid". I almost shed a tear, but then I remembered my real bff is Mr. Doom and his awesome glasses. Mr. Doom, don't ever go to contact lens.
I messaged Light while I was in the ladder chat and he ignored me, telling me "F you crazy Muslim, I only talk to cool people like Kimchi and Metroid". I almost shed a tear, but then I remembered my real bff is Mr. Doom and his awesome glasses. Mr. Doom, don't ever go to contact lens.
If you did message me, then my bad! In my defense, though, the PM system on the ladder chat is very poorly designed considering that there's no way you're going to notice the PM if you're away for a moment and it goes off the screen or if you're preoccupied with a battle.
About Texas and the super bible white protestant bias-- That's the one thing I'm ashamed of Texas for. The 1800s were a while back. But even since the 1950s, the world has changed more than parts of TX. I guess I should just be glad it's not South Carolina, where it seriously still is like the 1800s in a lot of places.
Light-- have you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? I'm working on it right now. He's pretty **** hardcore and takes the offense too. I'm more of a religious tolerance kind of guy. I will gladly have a religious debate and make my own case, but I don't really make my goal to recruit people or change their beliefs.
I only aim to open closed minds.
(Sometimes, though, it seems to happen when you make good points anyway.... My girlfriend was a sure Christian when I met her-- raised Presbyterian just like me. Now she's excited to read this book when I'm done with it. =X)
i'm pretty much an athiest, saw a small (by small i mean under the age of about 6) boy die screaming in a burning car, with his mum dead in the front, i assume it was his mum anyway, it wasnt even legible wha she originally looked like anymore.
i dunno, sorta shook me, i was christian before that, but if there was a god i would have been able to save him so i decided he couldtn be all knowing all powerful and loving, that wouldnt have happened among various other things (horishima, nazi's, etc.)
theres a nice quote i like to use on most devout christians, infact ive used it on every one thats tried to make me re-believe except my aunt, who used religion to save herself from mental illness, so i can sorta get that i suppose
the quote:
is god willing to prevent evil, but not able?
then he is not omnipotent
is he able, but not willing?
then he is malevolent
is he both able and willing?
then whence cometh evil?
is he neither able not willing?
then why call him god.
Light-- have you read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins? I'm working on it right now. He's pretty **** hardcore and takes the offense too. I'm more of a religious tolerance kind of guy. I will gladly have a religious debate and make my own case, but I don't really make my goal to recruit people or change their beliefs.
I have the book but I have not had the self motivation to read the whole thing yet. I'm going to just take it with me on the plane when I visit my grandparents in a few weeks (when I don't post for like 2 months don't think I died) and since it's going to be a long flight I'll just read all of it then. I hope I don't get into some bland conversation with a religious passenger when he/she sees what I'm reading, though. I might as well bring Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto as well, just to see who reacts!
On a serious note, from what I have read / been told I can say that I more or less agree with what Dawkins says. He made some points that I might argue about such as saying that people who don't believe in God have healthy and functional minds or something of that nature. I won't argue with that but the reverse is that people who DO believe are dysfunctional and diseased. To describe someone as dysfunction and sick based on a personal choice seems a bit extreme. What if you somewhat believe but have doubts? Are you somewhat dysfunctional?
That's just what I recall from when I glanced over the book a LOOONG time ago so my memory might be off. When I read the book again and come back from my vacation we can have a nice long chat about the text.
Side Note: I've had this post open for like 2 hours but I forgot to actually click "submit"
multiple tabs are a blessing and a curse
Edit: Hey, is there a way to replenish a depleted shield quicker than normal? Or are we stuck with the normal refresh rate that Ike has for his shield?
My standing on religion is sort of a combination of Brett and Light. I'm definitely atheist rather than agnostic, but when I'm in a religious debate I tend more towards trying to make my opponent see and understand my point of view as well rather than bash on their side and tell them they're wrong.
When it comes to religion, I personally just see no reason to believe in something when the only evidence is just what people wrote in a book. From my experience, people lie, people make stuff up, and people always have, so why should I believe people? Mathematics and science are things you can learn and experiment with yourself; you don't need to rely on what other people say, you can prove to yourself that it's real.
@Mr. Doom: There probably isn't; if there was it would be a commonly used and widely known strategy I would assume.
I don't believe in the concept of faith. With science, you can at least see the process how things are proven right or wrong. Science obviously just doesn't say, it is true because we think it is, or believe if it is. Everything in science is theorized, experimented, and then proven right or wrong or it is left in limbo for there is not enough evidence to give a verdict. With that said, there is still countless things science can't, or has yet to prove, so I am left open minded for there is no way of me knowing certain things. Saying I am an atheist is the easiest way to put it.
And yet has lots of things which Science (Biology/Evolution mainly) is based on are basically guesses. For example: Darwin based his whole theory of evolution on the idea that cells where simple things. We now know they are extremely complicated, far more complicated than Darwin could have ever thought they were when he made his theory. Interestingly enough, he never actually states what a "species" is in his book about species as well.
And also by Palpi's definition of Science (And the commonly accepted one: things you can test in a lab or experiment with), evolution is not Science. There is nothing to prove it. If there was a whole era of half humans, half ape like things, shouldn't there be thousands, if not millions of their skeletons laying around? We can find dinosaur skeletons, which are apparently millions of years older (I don't believe the earth being ancient like that, but that's another debate), and yet we can not find even one, unarguable skeleton of this very long lasting era of human evolution according to science. There has been several "Hey, this skeleton looks different!" moments, but a) there are very, very few of them and b) you can't prove it wasn't simply a diseased human you found with a messed up skeleton. Seeing as there are diseases as weird as muscle turning to bone... the few skeletons they have found don't prove anything. Not enough evidence for any conclusion.
There is also the insane odds of random mutations forming the essential amino acids needed for life. It's like, winning the jackpot in Vegas 100s upon 100s of times in a row. There are also the insane odds of two atoms running into each other in space (in a space I might add, that is suppose to be complete devoid of everything. Where did those atoms come from?) that has yet to have been really explained for the Big Bang theory. You can't even begin to put a number to those odds.
So evolution and it's joint ideas aren't science if going by the standard definition...and yet everyone calls it science. Bringing up another theory which has currently just as much evidence (Intelligent Design), and you're well on your way to getting an instant F or losing your job/funding.
Basically: I'm perfectly fine, and even enjoy science up until the point where they try to figure out where we came out. Then it becomes just a large hypocritical mess, seeing as they refuse to admit they have about as much physical evidence as the various religious theories, and scoff at every other theory, if not flat out punish you for even mentioning it if they can.
I would explain why God can be omnipotent despite all the atrocities happening on the earth, but with all the religion haters here, it seems that I would do nothing but run my mouth needlessly and get into a pointless argument.
But I WILL say this:
Based on the definition of most atheists, God is in fact NOT all-powerful. He can NOT do anything and everything.
The bible clearly states that God is incapable of telling a lie. Most athiests believe that an all-powerful God should be able to do "anything" so in that respect, they are actually right.
EDIT
So it seems Niddo is being added to my "loved" list alongside brett
And yet has lots of things which Science (Biology/Evolution mainly) is based on are basically guesses. For example: Darwin based his whole theory of evolution on the idea that cells where simple things. We now know they are extremely complicated, far more complicated than Darwin could have ever thought they were when he made his theory. Interestingly enough, he never actually states what a "species" is in his book about species as well.
And also by Palpi's definition of Science (And the commonly accepted one: things you can test in a lab or experiment with), evolution is not Science. There is nothing to prove it. If there was a whole era of half humans, half ape like things, shouldn't there be thousands, if not millions of their skeletons laying around? We can find dinosaur skeletons, which are apparently millions of years older (I don't believe the earth being ancient like that, but that's another debate), and yet we can not find even one, unarguable skeleton of this very long lasting era of human evolution according to science. There has been several "Hey, this skeleton looks different!" moments, but a) there are very, very few of them and b) you can't prove it wasn't simply a diseased human you found with a messed up skeleton. Seeing as there are diseases as weird as muscle turning to bone... the few skeletons they have found don't prove anything. Not enough evidence for any conclusion.
There is also the insane odds of random mutations forming the essential amino acids needed for life. It's like, winning the jackpot in Vegas 100s upon 100s of times in a row. There are also the insane odds of two atoms running into each other in space (in a space I might add, that is suppose to be complete devoid of everything. Where did those atoms come from?) that has yet to have been really explained for the Big Bang theory. You can't even begin to put a number to those odds.
So evolution and it's joint ideas aren't science if going by the standard definition...and yet everyone calls it science. Bringing up another theory which has currently just as much evidence (Intelligent Design), and you're well on your way to getting an instant F or losing your job/funding.
Basically: I'm perfectly fine, and even enjoy science up until the point where they try to figure out where we came out. Then it becomes just a large hypocritical mess, seeing as they refuse to admit they have about as much physical evidence as the various religious theories, and scoff at every other theory, if not flat out punish you for even mentioning it if they can.
Perhaps about one in a billion times a billion?
There are a rough estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe and between 1 billion and 30 billion planets estimated in our galaxy. 30 billion times 100 billion could be the max, but we'll give a conservative estimate of just one billion billion planets in the universe. Intelligent life is definitely on Earth, and the only things that were needed to start it were the presence of liquid water and a series of chemical reactions to form things like DNA or perhaps something closer to RNA that copies, but less accurately. Once any sort of genetic molecule is in place, natural selection can begin right there.
And given that a once-living worm-like bacteria has indeed been found on Mars from perhaps a few millennia ago, it is seen that even on some planets we see as no longer inhabitable at least were once EQUALLY capable of a smaller, simple forms of life (and even though the formation of these things is very unlikely as well, there have been billions of years and millions of cubic miles for nature to "try").
So get a very unusual and unique planet such as Earth which just happens to be in a "Goldilocks" zone (nice distance from a star where liquid water can stay and with a manageable day and night and seasons). Life can start and can stay for a while.
Consider this in a billion billion planets, and it makes you think that somewhere else, with such an incredibly massive number, there might be evolved, conscious life as well.
Hmmm. Perhaps you can read about Darwin's findings? Different traits in similar species in slightly different areas that happen to favor each different trait exhibited?
Or, take my own quick example.
You know how viruses get different strains, and many of those strains are becoming immune to old vaccinations, thus necessitating new vaccinations? The viruses are copying themselves inaccurately (mutating, if you will) and some of those mutated strains, if VEEERY similar, seem to be stronger or more resilient than others. This is a very, very rapid example of evolution.
Verrry tiny fractions of percents of corpses actually fossilize, and we're lucky to have fossils at all for any sort of species. Very lucky to have found majorities of whole fossilized corpses of dinosaurs (and I don't doubt we actually had to fill in missing parts of whole corpses). Either way, if we had no fossils at all, evidence for evolution through molecular genetics and simple geographical distribution would still be overwhelming.
Now, on the other hand, if evolution -could- be falsified, it would be by finding "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian," or something to that effect. No such anachronistic fossils have been authentically found.
That said, I think one fault my book here addresses (and I agree with completely) is that people looove to find "gaps" and attribute every gap to God. Anything that is unknown about anything is explainable by God. And it can't possibly be because we don't know YET. You know how Spain came in riding on horses and shining armor--- and the Native Americans thought they were gods. This whole sort of idea is basically a big "I dunno" wrapped up in spirituality, more of a LACK of explanation than otherwise. Which brings me to this.
Well. Where did God come from? You would say these atoms came from God, yes? Well, that only adds a step until we reach the unknown. What created the creator? This gap in our knowledge cannot be explained by God, because that is the problem we are trying to identify.
due to the example that brett gave, its easy to see and to understand that evolution does in fact exist. organisms carry the ability to adapt to their surroundings. That is why if you take a caucasian family and put them in the heart of Africa, after generations that family will be dark skinned, because dark skin deals with sunlight better and thus it is an adaptation of their bodies to their surroundings.
However, evolution only works up to a certain point. Its been many many years, and many many generations, yet, humans still have one head, one heart, 2 arms and 2 legs.
If the species altering evolution that could turn a single celled ameoba in to the humans we are today that some people speak of truly existed, there would be people walking around with 3rd and 4th arms and 5 kidneys and third lungs and more properly working fingers (I was born with 6 fingers on each hand, but the extra one didnt develop correctly so it was amputated, the is a family trait passed from my mother and mothers mother as well) because that would make them stronger and more fit to survive in the current world. and due to survival of the fittest these people would pass their traits down
But through all of recorded history humans have always had all the same parts. Weve had enough time to go through a change as drastic as monkeys from humans, but it hasnt happened yet. This shows to me that humans as well as other animals were created with the ability to adapt to their surroundings, but without the ability to truly alter their genetic makeup in the way that evolutionist tend to think that they can.
due to the example that brett gave, its easy to see and to understand that evolution does in fact exist. organisms carry the ability to adapt to their surroundings. That is why if you take a caucasian family and put them in the heart of Africa, after generations that family will be dark skinned, because dark skin deals with sunlight better and thus it is an adaptation of their bodies to their surroundings.
However, evolution only works up to a certain point. Its been many many years, and many many generations, yet, humans still have one head, one heart, 2 arms and 2 legs.
If the species altering evolution that could turn a single celled ameoba in to the humans we are today that some people speak of truly existed, there would be people walking around with 3rd and 4th arms and 5 kidneys and third lungs and more properly working fingers (I was born with 6 fingers on each hand, but the extra one didnt develop correctly so it was amputated, the is a family trait passed from my mother and mothers mother as well) because that would make them stronger and more fit to survive in the current world. and due to survival of the fittest these people would pass their traits down
But through all of recorded history humans have always had all the same parts. Weve had enough time to go through a change as drastic as monkeys from humans, but it hasnt happened yet. This shows to me that humans as well as other animals were created with the ability to adapt to their surroundings, but without the ability to truly alter their genetic makeup in the way that evolutionist tend to think that they can.
Hmmm. I think a part of the explanation to no 5-armed, 7-kidneyed people is a simple question of space and symmetry. Our arms are in very perfect places and can move around and be used with great efficiency. We are able to survive well without extras, and the extras very well might actually inhibit the use of our first two because of awkward positioning and whatnot. Aside from that, building more arms in a place where it wouldn't limit use of our first two arms would require new joints in some places that the joints just couldn't go. Skeletal structure would have to change very drastically to put ball and socket joints in our abdomen. And as natural selection goes, it seems that sort of change either wasn't necessary, is not yet necessary, or even was a hinderance to the way our species functions.
4 fingers and an opposable thumb on each hand seems pretty perfect, but a 6th finger is not unheard of in our world. This is probably because, even though it doesn't seem to help a whole lot, functional or not, it doesn't apparently hinder the survival or functionality of a human WITH a 6th finger.
The only thing that sort of puzzles me about this is why the appendix hasn't found a use yet. I guess it once had a use, even if it isn't known. But it doesn't hinder us as a species (apart from appendicitis, but that is a different type of hindrance altogether), so it stays. And who knows? Evolution takes a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time, so some use for it may come in the next million years (if humans survive that long).
Oh, and I would like to point out that humans did not come from monkeys. They had two separate and very long paths of evolution that just turned out closely related.
The one thing in all religious debate I can't disprove (to myself or others) is that there was no god or divine being who created everything and set everything in motion. It always leaves the question of who created the creator, but no matter what, the origins of the universe are equally incomprehensible. This is why I'm an agnostic.
To an extent, I think so too, and religious tolerance is one thing I advocate dearly (aside from Scientology, pretty much. That stuff is funny as BALLS).
Everything else you said makes sence, however, the first part of what you said was that its a point of space and symetry. Which doesnt really fly because the 1 of the 2 halves of the entire basis of human life, the heart, isnt even symetrical.
Lol, small and unworthy post in comparison to the debate that was going on.
British Boy, seems like USA won the group, even after another bogus offsides call that kept it tied. Though I will admit we missed a lot of easy goals. Final score shoulda been like 5-0.
In any case, I can say with confidence that FIFA just doesn't want us there. I know it's not gonna happen, but if USA won the World Cup, it would be the biggest double middle finger to the world ever. A sport that no one cares about here winning the World Cup LOL. What's next? Cricket?
1. Natural selection is not about animals mutating simply because it's possible. It is a system that causes living creatures to adapt to their natural environment over many, many generations. Humans today don't have 4 arms and 3 heads simply because it's not necessary for survival. Two legs, two arms and one head has suited us just fine, so there's no need to change. Even without a large brain I don't think humans would have changed much or at all, because obviously apes also retain the two arms, two legs and one head deal.
2. Once humans evolved the ability to walk upright and use their hands for tool-making (around the same general time that our brains began to grow), we no longer needed to evolve because we could adapt to our environment through our inventions. If inuits had spent thousands of generations living in harshly cold temperatures wearing nothing at all, they would likely have evolved a thick coat of hair everywhere, much like a polar bear (it's not impossible, we can grow hair everywhere except the palms of our hands and the soles of our feet). Instead, they fashioned heavy, warm clothing to instantly duplicate the slow process of evolution.
Lol, small and unworthy post in comparison to the debate that was going on.
British Boy, seems like USA won the group, even after another bogus offsides call that kept it tied. Though I will admit we missed a lot of easy goals. Final score shoulda been like 5-0.
In any case, I can say with confidence that FIFA just doesn't want us there. I know it's not gonna happen, but if USA won the World Cup, it would be the biggest double middle finger to the world ever. A sport that no one cares about here winning the World Cup LOL. What's next? Cricket?
yeah, we both went through in the end with almost identical scores at the end XP
usa get to paly ghana next round, while we have to face off with germany, i am not impressed by this.
but if america wins this world cup, then they should honestly start playing rugby.
im srs, im interested to see if they would be any good at it.
of course wit the whole 'sport no-one in usa cares about thing' true, but you have so many more people to pick from than most countries
1. Natural selection is not about animals mutating simply because it's possible. It is a system that causes living creatures to adapt to their natural environment over many, many generations. Humans today don't have 4 arms and 3 heads simply because it's not necessary for survival. Two legs, two arms and one head has suited us just fine, so there's no need to change. Even without a large brain I don't think humans would have changed much or at all, because obviously apes also retain the two arms, two legs and one head deal.
This would mean to me that people are going to start being different colors and have crazy complexions to their skin to become more radiation resistant to adapt to the eroding of the ozone layer and the higher levels of sun radiation entering the earth. And also start getting extra lungs to adapt to the smog and pollution in some cities.
2. Once humans evolved the ability to walk upright and use their hands for tool-making (around the same general time that our brains began to grow), we no longer needed to evolve because we could adapt to our environment through our inventions. If inuits had spent thousands of generations living in harshly cold temperatures wearing nothing at all, they would likely have evolved a thick coat of hair everywhere, much like a polar bear (it's not impossible, we can grow hair everywhere except the palms of our hands and the soles of our feet). Instead, they fashioned heavy, warm clothing to instantly duplicate the slow process of evolution.
you say this, the uk won the cricket world cup most recently agaisnt the aussies
@dakid:
it would still be in effect as you said, jsut not for the enviroments purpose.
for example, what sort of guy do girls like? at this point in time, its either meatheads who are big a muscular and give off the 'alpha male' vibe
or the emo/scene kids who show that they would be kind and caring to said woman for all eternity.
the extremes of emotion seem to win, so eventually there will be a large unstability in the world because there wll be no people in the middleground (all asumptions)
and another thing, waht about body type?
you dont see the fat kids getting any girlfriends do you? and same for the other gender.
we've lost the need for excess body fat, so it will eventualyl be removed from the build of a human
all assumptions again
