This is an excellent article, it's really made me think about the way I play. The main text is perfectly complimented by pictures and bullet-pointed lists - well-structured, well-written, very involving. You've obviously spent a lot of time on this; though I haven't read any other articles yet, this could easily be amongst the best this issue, if not the best. Awesome job hog :P My own finger combo's below - turns out I only use 6 fingers ^_^ Left Hand: Thumb - Free Second (Index) Finger - E / Space bar [Requires Movement] Third (Middle) Finger - X Fourth Finger - Z / Q [Requires Movement] Fifth (Little) Finger - Free Right Hand Thumb - Free Second (Index) Finger - Left Arrow Third (Middle) Finger - Up/Down Arrows Fourth Finger - Right Arrow Fifth (Little) Finger - Free

Great, going to read through it now ^_^

Congrats all! Some great entries for this competition ^_^

So that's a yes? The part of the post you quoted does not explicitly answer my question. As for this disrespectful 'rolling eyes' thing, please excuse me if I don't agree that two wrongs make a right. I don't really want to get involved with any more veiled-insult exchanges with mods. Thanks in advance for answering my query, and thanks for the advice you have given to players here ^_^

Good to hear you've done that - I was merely suggesting that action. Last question: So we're allowed to continue discussing religion...? Before, you said that no more posts on religion should be made.

I completely agree. However, why don't you put out those matchsticks by deleting those two inappropriate posts before the flames can spread? That's a lot easier than just taking the privilege for us to discuss a certain topic away from us altogether. Yes; this is why I think that we should be allowed to discuss religion as long as our posts are respectful and in the context of evolution, rather than banning the discussion of religion here altogether.

We said most of the posts on religion here have been respectful, and in the context of evolution... Just because there are a couple of posts which are disrespectful and off-topic, why d'you need to ban the discussion of religion here altogether? Why not just remove the posts you have linked to, and allow us to continue our discussion? Surely you are here to encourage discussion? Up until this point, the posts here on religion have been allowed, as long as they are respectful. Can it not stay that way? Thanks :) P.S. Let us continue this discussion in our PM conversation, to avoid going off-topic here. I request that you temporarily re-allow religion-related posts in this topic (so long as they are courteous and on-topic) whilst we hold such a discussion, if possible.

Congrats! Ah, brings back memories about one of your very first posts :lol:

Businessman.

Well, it's impossible to discuss evolution without discussing religion... Up until now, we have been discussing both in a fairly respectful manner. LiquidGold's post just then was rather off-topic, and I agree that it was unnecessary here. However, are we allowed to discuss religion, so long as we do so respectfully, and within the context of evolution (so no going on about religious war etc.)? That is what most of us have been doing, and it has stayed, for the large part, fairly productive and respectful (see already.dead's, skitee's, DirtFighter's, JonathanBernatowicz's, and my posts for examples of what I mean).

I repeat myself for the third time: more than half of religious believers in the US support evolution... I actually find your post quite derogatory towards those who do support evolution. I agree that some posts here are not appropriate. I recommend, however, that these posts are removed and the topic is left open, rather than punishing those who are using this topic well by closing it. Excellently said, thumbs up. Yes, I am an agnostic-atheist (someone who doesn't believe in God, though accepts that he could exist), but my belief is not set in stone - I actually tended to agree with theistic concepts at a younger age. My own research and discussion on religion, and the environment around me, is what has influenced my current belief. And I still have a long way to go in my life. Also, this idea about respect when discussing religion: - Theists, stop thinking that atheists are ignorant and un-enlightened people (e.g. "Just wait till the next resurrection/judgement day thingy on Earth, then you'll see who's right. The truth is the truth, and God will make you pay.") - Atheists, stop thinking that theists are blinded and close-minded people (e.g. "Those who don't accept evolution are ignoring the facts. Religion is violent and ignorant; can't they see what century we're in now?") Look guys; has anyone ever thought that there might be some truths in all beliefs, rather than "My way is the only way"? There you go - problem sorted! :lol: Religion is an awesome subject, and it holds so many moral/practical truths. Science is an awesome subject, and it holds so many moral/practical truths. What's the big issue about accepting that both could be right, whilst believing what you wish? As I have stated, many people believe both, and that both paths should be valued... even if you only believe in one of them (religion or science), you can still value the other...

Player GoldRock has been banned for a week. Reason: Violation of forum rules. Public discussions of moderators' and Administrators' activities, trolling p.2.18, 2.4, 2.6 .Rules

I wonder, do you try to follow such an example?

Might as well ^_^

Firstly, science does not support the need for there to be a God, though both theories can work together... Also, if Mr. I AM is above science, then why doesn't he intervene to save lives? To stop chaos, destruction and unnecessary death? Writing your opinion in great big letters does not make it fact. I agree with much of what you have said - most people who are passionate about religion (as am I) have personal opinions on it. However, whilst it is not possible to completely rid an article on religion of bias, it is possible to minimise such bias. It may be accepted as spiritually accurate, yes, but I have not seen much evidence at all for it being scientifically accurate... Feel free to point out such evidence. Saying that the Big Bang came from 'a sun' is incorrect. The idea is that the Big Bang occurred from literally nothing, and was on a much larger scale than that of 'a sun'. In this way, there are actually similarities between religion and science. Well, that is your opinion - though a fascinating one. As for your point about only one belief being true... I cannot put into words how much I disagree with that statement. Science and religion can both work. The majority of religious believers in the US support evolution, studies have shown... Also, your statement implies that there is only one correct religion. Well, wrong, in my view. I believe that all religions are equal, as diverse ways of life, and different ways of reaching a 'God'. Our different beliefs, and the tolerance of them (ie not just 'My belief is the only right belief') is what makes us wonderful human beings. I don't believe that personally. I believe they sin equally - we're all human, our beliefs do not remove our imperfections. I also think that anyone, religious or non-religious, can be a good human being - atheists aren't all necessarily horrible people :P That's an interesting quote, thanks for sharing it :) Again, interesting concept. I'd personally say that if God exists, he would not be with those who believe (for believers can be both good and bad), but with those who do the right thing. Good to hear - I agree completely ^_^ Well, the majority of Catholics in the US support evolution... Go and tell them they've all got it 'wrong'. All beliefs should be valued, as I said before; a Catholic who supports evolution is just as Catholic as one who doesn't. This 'creed' is open to interpretation; as the theist philosopher Iranaeus once said: "Without free will, we would not be able to fully develop as human beings". Yes, he is - well noticed. In that way, his argument wasn't very sound. Though it sometimes seems that the picture he shared has a point (not saying that applies to all religious followers, but some do act like they must be right, and that their opinion must be fact). @navi613, I'll provide some evidence once there is an opportunity to fit some into this lengthy debate :lol:

Ever heard of a joke? I was simply pointing out Google's good-humoured take on the answer...

Congrats ^_^ Ah, sorry - haven't been on recently, got a load of schoolwork... :c I'll go on tomorrow, though.

Wikipedia is good as a starting point for research and reference - what it contains is almost always pretty valid. However, official exam boards won't accept it as a source, as it is open to editing by any user (with some restriction) and so can occasionally contain inaccurate/false information. Otherwise, Wikipedia is great as a mostly unbiased source to use in discussion and debate.

Ahem... That information is sourced at the bottom of the article. Feel free to prove the points given wrong with evidence of your own.

I hate to break it to you, but whilst your gallantry seems well-intended, it's not quite... uh... the way most normal people would phrase such complimentary prose... :lol:

Yes, it is. Everybody knows that :rolleyes: Just type "the answer to life the universe and everything" into Google, and see what the Google Calculator says.

Taken from Wikipedia: Health effects. A 2005 WHO report states that smoking using a waterpipe poses a serious potential health hazard and is not a safe alternative to cigarette smoking. The average hookah session typically lasts more than 40 minutes, and consists of 50 to 200 inhalations that each range from 0.15 to 0.50 liters of smoke. In an hour-long smoking session of hookah, users consume about 100 to 200 times the volume of smoke of a cigarette. The chemical compositions of cigarette smoke and hookah smoke are different, however, as the workings of the charcoal in the modern hookah causes the tobacco mixture to be heated to a lower temperature, as opposed to the higher temperature in a cigarette where the tobacco is directly burnt. Consequently, the potential health effects of hookah smoke are expected to be very different. Despite a different chemical composition of the smoke, it is expected that heavy and long term use still has the potential to lead to diseases generally induced by tobacco, notably chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Mixtures with lighter concentrations or tobacco-free alternatives (e.g. tobamel, tea-leaf, molasses and glycerin-soaked stones) are widely available and aim to reduce the negative effects of tobacco. A 2008 aetiological study on hookah smoking and cancer led by a group of Pakistani researchers found that overall serum CEA levels (as a biological marker for cancer) in exclusive hookah smokers, who had been using weight equivalents of up to 60 cigarettes of tobacco in daily sessions for decades, were higher than in non-smokers but substantially lower than those recorded in cigarette smokers considering the same amount of tobacco. The study also concluded that heavy and non-moderate hookah smoking (2–4 daily preparations; 3–8 sessions a day; 2 to 6 hours net daily smoking time) substantially raises CEA levels. :mellow:

Please avoid being patronising :mellow: I know atheists such as myself are 'less-enlightened' than you or whatever, but no need to rub it in.

It's a form of tobacco, is more damaging to your health than cigarettes, and is addictive. I've seen people from my school use it; they literally can't stop, even though it's killing them. Tell me, how is that 'awesome'?

Interesting article - thanks for sharing that with me, it makes some good points ^_^ Hmm... Though science would say otherwise on the matter, that's certainly a more realistic interpretation of Genesis. Thanks for answering! It is generally an unbiased source - having previously worked with the Wikipedia community for some time, there are definitely decent standards in place for such matters, for remaining neutral is a key focal point for the encyclopaedia. In any case, that particular article is largely unbiased. There is a huge amount of evidence to support the theory. Of course, no scientific theories are definitely true, but this particular one is generally accepted as scientifically accurate. I can dig some evidence up from the deepest darkest realms of the Internet, if you wish :P 1. The dating methods are inacurrate, yes, but are generally in the right region of time. If dating methods say something came from millions of years ago, our methods are accurate enough to know this is correct. As for how many millions of years, that'd be less accurate. However, if carbon dating was so inaccurate, then why do scientists use it? The answer is that it's at least fairly accurate in giving a unit of measurement (thousands, millions) in terms of age. 2. Yes, in part, and I plan to read it from cover to cover in the near future. And the suggestion that dinosaurs and mammoths might be alive today, or might have been alive a few thousand years ago, unfortunately lacks evidence. Feel free to link me to any studies/reports which agree that could be the case. The Bible itself can be interpreted differently - I know many Christians who believe the 6 days of creation refer to periods of millions of years, including my Religion and Philosophy teacher. 3. Interesting concepts, though purely religious. Good to hear about your beliefs :)