I've heard it's many times worse for your health than smoking. A few kids at my school used to smoke it, under the stupid logic that the bubbling of the smoke through water would make the smoke safe to inhale :/ Poor topic, I think it should be closed.

Excellent idea. I hope it'll be considered by the CS team, if they read it ^_^

Literally one of the best songs ever :wub:

Actually, I'm pretty sure scientists can tell the difference between a variation (two humans different in height, but otherwise very similar) and a species (two humans with noticeable anatomical differences). Well, my doubts on the creationist viewpoint would fill a book :lol: Creationists believe the world was created in six days by a superhuman being, who took a nap on the seventh. Wha... ho... where's the evidence? How would that be possible? Doesn't God have to follow his own laws of nature? If not, then why doesn't he break them more often, in order to save good people from death, disease, destruction? That's mainly why I tend to find the viewpoint of liberalist theists, who point out the idea that the days of Genesis represent 'ages' (long periods of time) more credible. P.S. And don't answer with 'because the Bible says so'. I've heard that one waaay too many times :rolleyes: Feel free to explain concepts given in the Bible, though, and we could discuss those - though an atheist, I'm actually a bit of a religious encyclopaedia. Religion's a fascinating subject, and is correct in many ways ^_^

Found the game in a relatively boring summer holiday, when I chanced upon a review of it on an MMO site. I originally ignored it, then came back to the review when I'd gotten really bored and couldn't find anything else to do... and here I am ^_^

^Yes. What's so wrong with luck being an explanation for our existence? It seems us human beings love to think we're special in some way... when we're just a tiny blip in the scheme of the universe :lol: Agreed.

Thanks for the link :) I have, however, already read that article: - The article does not offer conclusive proof - the evidence provided could merely be interpreted as rejecting evolution. In actual fact, a quoted scientist in that article thought that the skull supports evolution, rather than rejecting it. It's all a matter of interpretation. - I have pointed out that whilst evolution is not perfect, and may have its exceptions as shown by the views of those conducting the study in that article, it is still the best theory there currently is, in the opinion of many. - In any case, those conducting the study seem a little confused - surely there skulls could be variations, yes, but of a previous species of human beings? I doubt 'variation' goes as far as one human of the 'same species' having a brain one-third the size of we do... Those particular skulls do not seem to match closely enough to our current anatomy to be considered variations of us - rather, they seem to show the variations seen in past species of homosapiens.

Agreed - I personally think that records with a limit should remain valid until that limit is reached.

Though I used to agree with such an argument, I now see this as a logical fallacy. Well, I am an agnostic atheist in that I don't believe in God yet I don't reject the fact he could exist... In the same way that one can't reject the possible existence of fairies, that is. Not disproving something is very different to proving something. Remember: innocent until proven guilty, and not the other way round. It's not the responsibility of atheists to provide evidence for their non-belief, just as I wouldn't expect you to provide evidence saying that giant lemons orbit galaxies outside of the observable universe. It would be the responsibility of those who believe such a thing to support their belief. As taken from a less-biased source, Wikipedia: As can be seen, theories as to the function of the appendix are widely unconclusive, with conflicting results from studies - Darwin's idea about the appendix being a leftover from evolution is still accepted as a possibility. In fact, I found out about this through a Biology lesson; the theory is evidently possible enough to be taught in schools. As for mutations being bad, I would actually argue that mutations have their good and bad points - as a relatively tall person (having reached 6 foot at 14), I would say that such variation has meant that I am occasionally more clumsy than my peers (as studies have shown), but that I have the advantage in quite a few sports (for example, schemes have been set up especially for tall people to enhance their more natural sporting ability). I would say it is near impossible to easily label a mutation as 'good' or 'bad', as that could depend on the environment an animal finds itself situated in. As for macro-evolution and natural selection, there weren't always humans and large mammals. Evidently, they've got to have come from somewhere... Which leads me to believe that they are variations of more simple creatures, which eventually became their own species. Let's not forget that evolution discusses this happening over millions of years, so the changes wouldn't be as apparent as, say, an apple tree changing to an orange one overnight. Of course, this is not exclusively an atheist view. In the US: - 58% of Catholics, 54% of Orthodox Christians, and 51% of Protestants support evolution as the best explanation for the origin of human life on Earth - This figure lies at 80% for Buddhists, Hindus (my own official religion), and Jews - 45% of Muslims support evolution Evolution is not a perfect explanation, just as the Laws of Physics have many exceptions at a sub-atomic level. Both theories, however, are considered the best that science can currently offer, and both hold quite a few truths, in my opinion.

You're welcome... again ;) (EDIT) My 3773th post!

Wait 'till December, when players'll be given the opportunity to organise what could become official tournaments - I might have a go myself ^_^ But good idea, it'd be a convenient way of holding such a tournament and I'd certainly take part.

Interesting to see how religion and science often overlap. I'm personally an atheist, but I still find such instances fascinating; religion contains many moral and practical truths, in my view. Thanks for sharing that fact :P

I think she implied something similar, yes. Just as humans looked different thousands of years ago to what they do now. Unfortunately, I disagree with that suggestion :P

In my opinion (and that of the majority of scientists), all animals are, in essence, half-evolved. All animals constantly continue to evolve, albeit at a very slow rate; we ourselves are half-evolved from prehistoric man, but we have yet to evolve further. In order words, all animals are constantly evolving. Take the example of us. We have an appendix... but apart from having to have it removed every now and then when it becomes inflamed, what is it for? Well, nothing really, as far as doctors/scientists can tell... It's simply what remains of our old digestive systems, say scientists; as we consumed a lot more vegetables/plants than we do now, the appendix was needed to digest all that extra fibre. But once we started eating more meat, the appendix was no longer needed. In that way, we're half-evolved ourselves - we still have unnecessary bits and pieces in our bodies from the past. A small example of evolution and natural selection: - Take the prehistoric version of a horse-like creature, which consumed the leaves of certain trees. - Now, those prehistoric four-legged animals that lived in hot countries had difficulty finding food; the trees there were quite tall, and so the leaves were hard to reach. - By chance, due to a genetic mutation, a few of them were born with longer necks than the rest, and so could more easily reach the leaves closer to the top of the trees. - These particular animals had a better chance of survival, and reproduced, producing more longer-necked horse-like creatures. - Eventually, these particular animals evolved into its own species as their necks grew longer through each generation - the giraffe. - The remaining, shorter-necked animals found ways of gradually changing their diet to grass (and other low-lying plants) in order to have a better chance of survival. - There you have it - the prehistoric ancestors of giraffes and horses became two distinct species. Of course, evolution is just a theory. However, I personally believe it is a well-supported, justified one. It's interesting to see the diverse views here; in England, the majority would agree with evolution. Just goes to show the differences in culture and belief which make us individual as human beings ^_^ [rant] I believe the point of this topic was for discussion of our various opinions. I am simply giving the reasons why I believe evolution to be correct. Sorry, but we are all entitled to share our opinions... I am not the only person on this topic to have shares opinions and reasons for them either. Why didn't you ask that question to @already.dead, who was arguing against evolution? The answer is: you only said that because you disagree with what I'm saying, and you wanted to 'embarass' me for sharing my opinion. [/rant]

A common misconception. We did not evolve from monkeys - monkeys and humans merely share common ancestors. In very simple terms, there was once a four-legged, simple creature which roamed the Earth - some species of this evolved into monkeys, others evolved into humans, over millions of years.

I personally believe that evolution has enough evidence to be considered scientific fact. It's widely accepted by the scientific community as being accurate. As well as this, there are many religious people who accept evolution. Religion could be seen as explaining why the world was created (to what purpose), whereas evolution and natural selection could be seen as conclusive theories as to how the world was created. Religion and science do not necessarily conflict with one another. Thank you :)

On the whole, these changes seem pretty good. I especially can't wait for when we'll be allowed to organise our own tournaments. Nice work, CS ^_^ However... I agree completely - excellently phrased. Surely the clans in Leagues 2 and 1 should be allowed to have as many members as they wish like the others, but they should select 15 of those (and 5 subs) to play in official clan tournaments, as is similar to what is currently going on? Like others, I don't think that this particular change is good.

'Grats monster! You're welcome, and congrats again, this time for ranking :P

:mellow: The user below has M3 Ricochet.

^Well, apart from the above... water ^_^

Excellent vids. Like the parkour in the second, and the use of various sniping spots. The screaming adds some great humour, too :lol:

Pfft. I would never resort to such barbaric methods as using a club.

I politely offered to solve his dilemma for him, of course :P Hmm, a club... Thanks for the idea!