War2.ru Slogan
News: Watch live streams at War2TV and replays of past streams at War2TV Reruns!

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the forums! We're glad to have you here! :) You can register your account here, then feel free to introduce yourself in the Server.War2.ru board & let us know who you are on the server.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Lambchops

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25
But Lambchops didn't even say he believed in it; he said he didn't really but that it'd be nice.

Yes. One thing I am sure of is that humans aren't infallible, and that if God exists, none of the human religions (Christian/Muslim/Judaism/Bhuddism etc.) have 100% got it right. So if I do ever meet God I'm pretty sure she will be something else entirely.

As for the world being messed up, surely for a creator, the only point in creating something is to give it free will and see what it does by itself, otherwise it's not a creation - it's a mural.

The Marxism/leftism thread is a free-wheeling forum for chat found in the General Discussion subforum.  Serious posting is not required.

Yeah cool, I was just making a bad pun "failing to capitalize" ;)

Do you get sent to the shame thread for bad puns?
If so I'll understand ... It was pretty woeful lol.

Just noticed this old thread. Here's some info if anyone is still interested.

MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) was basically developed as a way for (piano type) digital keyboards to interface with computers. MIDI files are not sound files.

The best analogy for MIDI files is sheet music. They contain a list of what note to play on what instruments when and for how long. The sounds are generated by whatever sound hardware you are playing them on (as SmurfKing pointed out above).

So if you record a wav file from a MIDI file on very good hardware, you will get a better sound replaying that wav file on a lower quality sound hardware than playing the original MIDI file on the low quality hardware.

Of course the wav file contains much more information than the MIDI file and will be considerably larger.

Compression such as MP3 is a seperate subject, and is only relevent for the wav file, which contains actual audio, whereas the MIDI file does not. Audio compression is just a size/quality trade off. Mild compression is a good thing and provides exellent audio quality, however if you try to squeeze it too much it will sound aweful.

Just a thought .... but back in 1996 everything was 8-bit audio. IIRC the first 16-bit soundblaster cards came out a little while after this. It may be that someone with a modern VHQ audio setup might be able to produce really good audio recordings from an original MIDI source that sound better than anything they could produce back in 1996.

... and of course there is that awesome live orchestral version on youtube somewhere.

4) High Quality Intellectual Discussion / Re: Mousey is a genius
« on: September 19, 2017, 09:48:54 AM »

Kewl  :fro:

5) High Quality Intellectual Discussion / Re: new name for this board
« on: September 19, 2017, 09:23:54 AM »

No Homers!   ;D

6) Server.War2.ru / Re: Anyone have their Warcraft 3 Reign of Chaos Box still?
« on: September 19, 2017, 09:20:13 AM »
I think I still have a WC3 box in storage somewhere, I'm not sure but I'll look for it next time I'm there. IDK what version but I bought it the day it was released.

Relax, blid, you're not gonna be banned for failing to capitalize. :P

Certainly not in the marxism thread ;D

EDIT:  ...sorry, the Marxism thread.

Now "big bangs" and particle physics ideas are awesome fun places to visit in you mind ... the possibilities are amazing.... and for me, these concepts seem much more "Godly" than an old guy with a white beard making play-doh animals and trees then tapping them with his magic God wand and bringing them to life. You don't make a universe like that ... eww... God would do it so much more awesomly!... well I'd like to think so anyway.

@Lambchops You're invited! :)
Aww thx Baby :)

I have a busy couple of weeks coming up so I might not be able to contribute as much as I would like in the near future - but nm I dont think this topic will be [SOLVED] any time soon.

Quote from: some guy
..... The universe is as it is regardless of what you choose to believe. God is or is not regardless of what you choose to believe.

i agree with this person's assessment

Yeah I agree with it... mostly.....  Although I have this idea floating around in the back of my head that suggests that God exists because people have faith, and that people create God the same way God created people, which is an impossible chicken and egg thing, but many of the big questions boil down to paradoxes.

... and I'm not convinced of this type of thing, like I am sure of science stuff, when I occasionally think about them, they're just ideas, not beliefs.

BTW: I consider myself a hopeful agnostic. I don't believe in God, but I would like to. I would love to be able to convince myself that God exists. I havn't yet, but it will be a nice day if it ever happens. BUT... I am not convinced that God doesn't exist either. I have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to disprove God, and would never try to argue that point.

10) Server.War2.ru / Re: Blah
« on: September 17, 2017, 10:07:50 PM »

11) Flame Wars & Offtopic / Re: the mystery of violence in st.louis
« on: September 17, 2017, 08:43:16 AM »

You said no part of science denies faith or God. I would agree with that statement.

Yay  :)  Common ground is a great place to start.

Your assumption that man of the past was stupid and modern man is smart is completely false, however.

Sorry, but that was not the point I was trying to make.

I was trying to suggest that the mind of man could not possibly contain the true thoughts of GOD as the mind of GOD must contain all the mysteries of the entire universe. So anything GOD tells man is going to be a very simplified version of what she is actually thinking.

Look no further than these W2 forums to witness multiple modern specimens and their barely literate ramblings.

LOL can't argue with that.

Language in the past was far more complex than language today. Language is devolving. Complexity is being lost.

I'm sorry, but this is not correct. Please check your sources. Many people have devoted their entire lives to studying linguistics and the evolution of languages. They are most definately becoming more complex.

Evolutionists do not have reasonable answer for the evolution of language and how languages came to be.

The development of language continues today. It is no mystery. As for it's origin, some birds have different alarm calls for "man" and "snake". There are many other well documented examples of this type of thing from animal kingdom. It stands to reason that early men developed different grunts with different meanings, and then continued to expand on this primative language the more they used it, as we still do today. The part of the brain that is responsible for language and its development are well know and have been extensively documented.

This is one of the most well studied and understood parts of human science.

Although it's true that humans have been getting smarter as we evolve, I don't imagine there would be a great deal of difference between the cognative processing ability of a modern man vs. a man 2000 years ago.

What there definately is, however, is a massive difference in the education level of an average person, and also in the collective knowledge of mankind. Most importantly language. In simplest terms modern languages contain many more words than their ancestral versions, so we can use then to communicate more complex ideas, and subtle nuances.

I'm sure that compared to the mind of GOD, the mind of a 2017AD man is just as tiny as the mind of a 500BC man. Any words that could be written down and understood today would still be nothing compated to the mind of GOD. Either way, it's still Einstein trying to explain relativity to a goldfish, the fact that one goldfish may be a little bit more advanced than another doesn't really tip the scales.

However I would think that a message written in today's language and for someone with today's knowledge, even when translated into ancient words would still be at least partially unintelligable to someone who lived 2000 years ago, because they just did not have the full range of concepts available to them that we have now.

In the same way we should view the words given to, written by and transcribed by ancient men as a copy of a copy of the best metaphor that Einstein could come up with to tell a small orange carp.

Without claiming to be particularly well versed in the bible, the Adam and Eve story seems to me to be very much involved with the gaining of self-awareness, which is a very important point in the evolution of man, for it is because we are aware of our own existance that we can be held resposible for actions, and therefore be capable of good or evil.

I don't see the old testiment as being incompatible with a time when the first humans became self-aware an discovered that they were alone in a beautiful garden. I'm sure there are many more good messages to be taken from it apart from the literal narative.

Lambchops, you sit perched in this idea that evolution is scientific. I am not talking about variation within created kinds such as the fact that dogs produce a variety of dogs, horses produce a variety of horses, roses produce a variety of roses etc.

Of course it is scientific. I have been avoiding further discussing proof of evolution, as I have already written a fair amount, (even on this specific point) in a previous topic devoted to the subject. This topic is about racism and telling claw what a tard he is. ( yay! more common ground  :) )

The process of evolution only came into it when you suggested that evolution was racist simply because some old white guys were racist.

I have also presented my personal thoughts as to why evoultion need not be considered contrary to the bible, depending on how you choose to interpret it. This is a bit off topic, but seemed relevant to the point that the conversation was up to.

There is no mechanism in DNA that allows for the addition of NEW information. The scrambling or distortion of existing information happens (mutations) and this is always bad for the creature in question. Having an arm where an arm shouldn't be isn't progress.

There is no mechanism for new information to be added.

Not always. Usually, certianly. Random mutations can and do add new genetic information, and these are almost always not an improvement, but very occasionally they are, and when this happens, we keep them.

But even apart from random mutations there are very specific tools that naturally exist to edit DNA. These are the tools that are use to create the GM stuff that scares people so much. Man did not create these things, they discovered them, worked out how they function then re-purposed them for their own goals. These are alive and functioning and part of the natural process. Whether or not you agree with scientists using them (yet another topic - not here pls) its must be noted that they are not man made. Maybe they evolved, maybe GOD made them, but man sure didn't.

So other than just rolling your eyes and acting superior like science is on the side of the nonsensical theory of evolution, bring out your best evidence for one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal, specifically cows to dolphins would be ideal.

And when you have that covered, explain why you think an unobserved explosion of nothing that supposedly happened billions of years ago and created everything we see in the universe is in any way a part if science (which by defenition includes things we can observe, test, study, repeat).

This is the most important part. There is no eye-rolling at you BabyShark. You are one of my favorite WC2 people and I would not do you the disservice. I find you to be intelligent and charming (except when you boot me lol) I only wish I could help you to understand science without feeling that it in any way diminishes your faith. I don't think it's likely that we will ever agree on this topic but that won't change my opinion of you.

The specific explainations of proofs you have requested are long and involved conversations that I will not attempt here, although if you really do want to discuss them later I would be happy to.

A final thought.

Imagine for a moment, if you would, that evolution and the big bang theory are correct, and that GOD is real.

In the beginning there was darkness then GOD spoke the word into the darkness. The word of GOD was the light, and that light was the spark that started the big-bang, and from that spark the particles evolved, and the planets evolved, and the galaxies and the plants and the animals, and mankind, just as GOD knew it would, for it was her word that created it.

Then imagine you are GOD looking down at your beautiful creation, and you see that mankind has evolved to the point where they have realised that they exist and that they are in the middle of the beautiful garden you have created for them.

What would you tell them? Would you straight up just give them the full history of the known universe then follow up by explaining, in detail, the mechanism by which life changes its form?

... or would you tell them to love their neighbour, and not to murder people, but to treat others as you would have them treat you?

It seems to me, thankfully, that GOD is not a nerd, and opted for the second choice, which is what mankind really needed to know.

So don't look for the truth of science in the bible, it's not a technical manual for nerds - GOD made nerds to work that stuff out, and perhaps GOD gave us the bible to stop everyone else from killing all the nerds when they started talking about boring science stuff.

                                                                 :critter:  With love, respect and no eye-rolling

12) Flame Wars & Offtopic / Re: the mystery of violence in st.louis
« on: September 16, 2017, 08:56:41 AM »
its a number like any other. some numbers are accepted, some are frowned up/ignored if it doesnt fit an (nearly religious) agenda. sometimes you even get called a nazi

not by me. read again.

13) Flame Wars & Offtopic / Re: the mystery of violence in st.louis
« on: September 16, 2017, 05:18:26 AM »
all that because everyone except for me and blid fear to look at the numbers and say this out loud - niggers commit more crimes as an ethnic group

A) You have not at all demonstrated this.

B) Why are you devoting so much of your time to trying to demonstrate it? Why is it so important to you to be able to justify looking down on another group of people? (now re-read my previous).

14) Flame Wars & Offtopic / Re: the mystery of violence in st.louis
« on: September 16, 2017, 03:19:27 AM »
This is a really hard discussion.

On one hand, a religious zealot who doesn't understand science but insists on rationalizing it as being invalid for fear that it may invalidate their faith.

On the other hand someone who has based their sense of self on the sad fact that another culture deemed their culture to be sub-human.

In the first case I can say only this. Don't be afraid of science, it does not invalidate your faith. The words in the bible were spoken thousands of years ago. They were spoken in such a way that the minds of those ancient people could understand them. Surely the mind of GOD must contain the entire universe so no man could ever understand it. Surely any communication between GOD and a man must be the simplest of translations of the tiniest fragments of GOD's plan? No part of science denys faith or GOD. Look for the message in the bible and apply it to the real world around you. You don't need to trapped by today's literal equivalent of words that were in the first place akin to a wise elder speaking to a pet, and then repeated and translated by many men over many years. If you were GOD how would you have explained the mysteries of the universe to a peasant 2000 years ago? Not an easy task.

... and for our racist friend, here is the problem:

At some level you think the nazis were right. You are suffering from some sort of cultural Stockholm Syndrome. It seems that you were hit so hard with the nazi stick that it broke you. Now you spend your days trying to point to some other culture and argue that it is even more sub-human than your own.

By pointing at another culture and saying "it's not us, look at them", you are just proving that you are still 100% pwnt by the nazis. I suggest to you that you should realise that the entire concept of declaring groups of people to be sub-human is evil, and as long as you do so you are just trying to place your self-image higher on the nazi scale. Only when you stop trying to impress them will you be healed. Good luck.


15) Flame Wars & Offtopic / Re: the mystery of violence in st.louis
« on: September 14, 2017, 10:50:36 PM »

Charles Darwin was not a cult leader. Nor was he infallible, or a messiah. Like most men of his time, I'm sure he was more than a little bit racist.

The scientifically accepted theory of evolution is not "Darwinism". Darwin did not invent the concepts of evolution and natural selection, nor did he have the last word on them, he was simply the first modern western man to write them down and present it as a scientific theory.

Various ideas on evolution date back as far as there are records on such things i.e. the ancient Greek philosophers.

Finding individual lines in old texts and interpreting them to support one viewpoint or another is a religious method not a scientific one.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25