I'm British, I apologise if I do anything which could possibly, somehow, be construed as being offensive. And yes, it's easy.

Define "formed". I think everyone has a moral compass which is influenced by a whole range of things, society being the main one.

I refuse to accept that I would have read your mind. After all, I had the idea (although, obviously, it didn't originate from me) approximately two years before you did...

Are going to be a bit late this year... But they are coming, I promise you. They should be done by mid-January, but it could be a lot sooner than that if I get working hard. To whet your appetite: Predictions for 2012: http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=86970 A judgement about those predictions: http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=162482&hl= Predictions for 2013, Part One: http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=163565&hl= Predictions for 2013, Part Two: http://en.tankiforum.com/index.php?showtopic=166268&hl=

Overall, seems okay. Would like there to be a temporary feature enabling people to sell their hulls which have been altered and receive 2/3 or 1/2 of what they paid for it, if they desire to get a new hull - some of the hulls are very different and so would appeal to different people.

I'm not studying maths full-time yet, but I want to do maths at university when I get there. I'm currently doing both Maths and Further maths for my A levels at college

To all the guys complaining: -Seriously, the reason why it's been tested is so that we can give feedback on it. The fact is that Tanki recently have been very good in responding to people's criticism so I would have faith in them to deal well with this as well. :)

Old maps would definitely be preferred. The current hulls/tanks are okay but I hate these maps, they're so ugly and take away so much of the excitement of the game. Oh well, personal opinion. Hopefully the new graphics will be good.

Sheesh guys lay off the moderators. If they make a decision and you think they made a mistake, then complain about it and bring it before the necessary authorities/publicly if the authorities won't listen. Until then, just lay off them and don't tell them what to do, that they made a slight mistake here or there, or whatever. If you have an issue then take it up with them in PM/complain properly. Until then, let's just continue our discussion. I still await an evolutionist answer to:

Main topic looks fantastic. B)

nfsw. Not for safe work?

Having read a bit on this topic, I'd just like to say a few things - first of all, can we keep this to a discussion about evolution/non-evolution and not a discussion about religion/morals/race/heaven/football/cookery/the weather or anything else? Also, can we all, whichever side we're on, accept that the other side has people who sincerely believe in it and that both sides are reasonable theories, no matter whether you believe one or the other? And then as a result of that, can we please provide evidence and deal with the points which other people bring up, trying to support/disprove them with evidence and how we personally interpret the evidence? And finally, can we be mature about this and not stereotype people who hold to the opposite view or accuse them of holding that view because their parents said so/they hate the concept of God/they refuse to open their mind or whatever? When it comes to creation, let me explain why I personally hold to it. Firstly, the Bible says so, and the Bible as yet (as far as I can see) has not been proven wrong in any aspect, so why would it be wrong when describing creation? Contemporary historical accounts have so far only supported the Bible's histories in the Old Testament, the stories about Jesus are also supported by contemporary historians, and the prophecies which were written many years before the events which they prophesied about have so far never failed come true. I also believe that the Bible in Genesis chapter one doesn't really allow interpretation for evolution. Secondly, I would say that I don't see any solid evidence for evolution and as a result of that I don't believe it took place. I don't think that there is any evidence for macro-evolution as a whole, mainly due to the fact that there is biologically no way that we know of of animals forming new species by genetic change. Also, I would say that the majority of "evidence for evolution" simply goes to proving micro-evolution, which nobody is denying. Thirdly, I would say that I believe in creation because I think that it is the only way of explaining the existence of our world in the perfect or near-perfect way which it is. I think that the way in which our bodies are so designed as to if we had one less gland or whatever we would be dead is just too good to be true, as is the existence in our universe as carbon being able to bond so perfectly, the way in which ice is one of the very few materials to be less dense in its solid state than its liquid state, the "coincidence" of hydrogen bonding and so forth all just seems too good to be true in a world of chance. I accept that this isn't really an argument against evolution but rather a support for a creator (who could have used evolution), yet that is why I believe in creation. A few questions I would have which suggests why I don't believe in evolution: 1. How do you explain the amazing perfection of science and our body? 2. What about entropy? 3. What evidence for macro-evolution is there, if any? 4. Why aren't there any partial reptile-partial mammal creatures around today? Or do they exist? The same applies to many evolutionists, most of whom refuse to even deal with any debate about creationists using non-arguments such as "Oh, that's old-fashioned."; "Nobody believes that anymore"; "Just look at the evidence!" [whilst providing no evidence for us too look at]. I'm not claiming creationists have a kind of moral superiority here and I really dislike the people who refuse to even consider themselves being wrong, both creationists and evolutionists - but these people exist on both sides and to tarnish everyone on one sound with the same brush is childish and untrue. Oh, so these people: http://creation.com/creation-scientists don't exist? There are some pretty high-up scientists there! I'd hardly accept that "all scientists" believe in evolution. And Darwin's theory might be more than a hundred years old, but creation theory goes back since the beginning of time... does that make it more irrefutable? Hardly. Both have their merits, and both might be correct - although I personally would believe in six-day creation, I accept that evolution is still a reasonable scientific theory, despite being one I believe from the evidence around to be incorrect.

Good old Oxidane. With a few impurities, of course. Fortunately.

Difference between Macro and Micro evolution right there. Completely agree with your second statement (about the dark/light skin) but that doesn't go anywhere to proving anything about macro-evolution, which is what this discussion is about. ;) Gonna have to call this one as a big lie right here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the evolutionary view has no credibility but the appendix argument doesn't cut it anymore. For a long time, the appendix was considered as such, a useless by-product of evolution. Alas, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-function-of-t and other recent scientific research has refuted that view. :| The appendix does have a purpose in life. Also, about natural selection. My belief about natural selection is that it does exist - anyone who observes the world can see some form of natural selection taking place in nature. However, I don't think natural selection can answer the real question here: How do species change? Oh, it's fine to say "animals changed to be more adapted to their environment" but biologically that doesn't cut it. Perhaps a giraffe used to be a little shorter and gradually the taller ones ousted the smaller ones via natural selection, but natural selection doesn't explain macro-evolution, the way in which a species can just change into another species. There is no evidence of that happening in our world (apple trees don't produce oranges, to state a slightly exaggerated example) so that's why I don't get natural selection as an argument for macro-evolution; another thing I'd say is that all evidence in biology is that mutations are almost always bad, especially when it comes to beings as complex as mammals and reptiles and so on. Again, all of this is my interpretation of evidence - everyone interprets evidence differently.

Way to go. Problem is, I suggested more or less the same format about a year ago when the cybersport model was being reviewed. A year later, they finally take up my idea of different leagues for clans, seasons, and promotion and relegation. Way to go. One question, what's the 'penalty' for a tie?

1. Carbon dating has been proven to be very inaccurate (discrepancies in the same block of rock, etc) 2. Fossil Record dating is very very tepid at best. The way the scientists date things using the fossil record is a lot of guesswork. 3. Other species of humans? What about just people who are different? Personally, I think that if a dwarf and a six-foot-eight guy died together, any geologist in the future might assume that they are different species, but they're not... they both are a form of mutant (not mutant in a bad sense, but their genes are slightly weird). The fact is that people have been different. Not to mention that the change in human "species" is hardly anything, just a different type of skull, etc - which points to MICRO-evolution and gives absolutely no support to MACRO-evolution, two very very different things which are unfortunately often overlapped. My opinion on science. :L

I believe some form of evolution takes place, it's obvious that micro-evolution takes place all around us and to deny that is plain stupidity. I, for one, do not buy the evidence for macro-evolution and think that the evidence around us suggests that macro-evolution never took place and that in reality God created the world. But that's my opinion gained from the evidence around us, I'm not discounting macro-evolution as a possibility but I don't think that it happened.

Very, very good. :) Thanks Tanki for listening to people's feedback. :)

If you have a passionate bias against World of Tanks.

Very talkative, annoyingly. I like being quiet but I can't control my mouth at times. :/

Give the mods credit, they're doing something good. :) Anyway, I have been told that I'm a girl before.....

I support Liverpool. But Rugby, Cricket, and even the American thing which is not football but nevertheless is still an amazing sport are superior as a sport to the rubbish boring spectacle that is football. Anyway, Rugby is like the best sport ever. Ever. Any other rugby lovers out there?

I suppose it depends upon what a team wants. I don't think there are many teams of lieutenants and majors who would ask a generalissimo on their team to leave. On the other hand, there are many teams of generalissimos who would ask a lieutenant and/or a major on their team to leave.

I think you misinterpreted me. Basically, I know roughly how much the consultants get paid - I have a few friends who are/have been consultants and I can roughly see from the rate at which you got an m3 combination after being a consultant how much you get paid. Not foolproof but I have a general idea. And in my opinion it's too much for what you do. My opinion. Then again, I believe the same applies to the reporters. That's just my opinion though. I appreciate that you disagree. In my opinion this is part of the problem - staff is the family. In my eyes, the community is a big family wherein there are a few members given greater authority and roles.

You have your limitations but I would at least appreciate a polite "I'm sorry, but I can't speak about that." and leave the conversation open for a few days in case anything more needs to be said. Let me get this right, I'm not talking about me bringing up a subject which the mod can't talk about. I'm talking about being in full flow with a debate/discussion with a mod who suddenly says "talk to Bruce" or in one case "Stop messaging me" or, in another, a few personal jibes and a message delete. There is no sensible "I can't talk about that", no other reasoning, just the post deleted. This happened in three separate discussions with mods (or in one case an admin of one of the staff teams). Now that is what I don't think is a piece of advice at all, just a piece of lazy moderation who are sick and tired of someone desiring to question them and have a discussion with them.