I LOVE IT! IT'S SO FLUFFY!

Well you see he has a Generalissimo account, and even he is a developer too so he should be able to participate just like the Gefreiter (with no alts) developers. Also, the rank limitations are met so that noone can join with their alt account as well. So, since Semyon or any of the developers won't be doing that it's okay :)

I love the idea! (Thus the reason I gave it reputation) However, I believe there should be less of these spots than there are today. Because while it's very easy for Shaft to use this to its advantage, and while you claim that other turrets can shoot through it too as if that fixes a problem, it is much harder for other turrets to destroy the Shafts that are constantly shooting through these holes due to them being so small. Also short-ranged weapons can't use them to much extent. So while I agree we should help Shaft users a little bit, we should also consider how much we're helping them because if the amount of holes remain the numeral, there will certainly be a lot of complaints against Shaft users, especially at the low ranks.

Meh, but technically this is not a player, this is an elephant. This is an object. It's a flood sign, not a player. I'm not complaining about the player @BouncingElephant nor , but rather the flood itself, unto which is the elephant. So....

WHOA! You said something besides that elephant thing :O

The players ;)

Calm down, I'm not in the mood right now to argue, but I will say this. I did not claim that the earth was 10,000 years old there (though I do believe that)but rather stated that in order to believe the Rapid-Decay theory you'd have to believe the earth is 10,000 years old.

The silly Bouncing Elephant is back, I am unfortunate to say. This time with the new story that his hind legs were removed. So, the story is is that bob needs 100 re-posts to pay for his surgery, but according to his message they've already been surgically removed. How does that work out? Also, may you guys remind me how re-posts pays for hospital bills?

Well let me explain. The earth's magnetic field is one of the most controversial subjects there is. You see, the magnetic field is what makes us know what is North and South on a compass. It's earth's biggest magnet, as it's earth itself. There has been shown and proven to be a magnetic field. But the controversy is--where is it and how does it work? Well, there are two theories. One evolutionist, one creationist. It would be impossible for evolutionists to believe in the other and vice-versa. Let me explain the two theories and how they both work, then you may be able to draw conclusions, etc. As I said, there are basically two theories that try to explain where this electrical current in the earth's core originates. "The first theory, called the Dynamo theory, is believed by the majority of scientists today. This theory says that the motion of fluid in the outer core of the earth is caused by temperature differences in the outer core as well as the rotation of the earth. This motion causes the motion of electrical charges in the core, which creates electrical current. The second theory, which is believed by a minority of scientists, is called the rapid-decay theory. This theory states the electrical current of the earth is a consequence of how it was created. If one makes a few assumptions about how earth was created, it is possible to actually calculate how much electrical current would be generated as a result. That electrical current would then begin to slow down over time, because electrical flow is resisted by all matter through which it flows. This would cause the current to slow down, eventually stopping. So GoldRock, do you see the difference between the two theories? The Dynamo theory says that temperature differences in the outer core and the rotation of the earth work together to keep the electrical current in the core going. The rapid-decay theory says that earth's inner core is actually slowing down the flow of electricity that was started as a consequence of how the earth was created. Well, since the majority of scientists believe the dynamo theory, it must be the correct one, right? Not necessarily. Science is not done by majority rule (which is what I'm trying to say); rather done by experiment as you would probably agree. We cannot directly observe the core of the earth to see whether it is helping the electrical current or slowing it down, but we can observe it indirectly. So goldy, how do we do that? How do we observe the inner core indirectly? You see, all scientists as a group determined its size and composition by examining the way it responded to seismic waves. The way to observe it's magnetic field, is to make careful measurements of the intensity it produces. Now you probably know how to determine the validity of a scientific theory when we are making indirect observations I'm guessing? Well if you sort of forget, basically scientists use the theory to make predictions, and then they compare those predictions to data they collect. In the end, the theory most consistent with the data is the one we should believe. The first thing we can observe about the magnetic field is that its strength of intensity is decaying. Over the past recorded 170 years, scientists have been making careful measurements of the strength of earth's magnetic field, and these measurements tell us that over time, the earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. Which theory best explains this fact? Well, they both do, but the rapid-decay theory does a slightly better job. The rapid-decay theory predicts a rather steady decay in the earth's magnetic field, and that's what has been observed over the last 170 years. The Dynamo theory predicts a changing magnetic field, because temperature differences in the earth's outer core change, which will cause a change in the flow of fluid. It could be that during the past 170 years, the changing fluid flow has been such that the magnetic field of the earth is decreasing. However, the Dynamo theory predicts that eventually, the fluid flow will change such that the magnetic field will increase again. Thus, both theories predict changes in the earth's magnetic field, but the changes they predict are....different. The rapid-decay theory predicts a general decrease in the earth's magnetic field, while the Dynamo theory predicts a fluctuating magnetic field, with the field sometimes getting weaker and sometimes getting stronger. In the end, then, both theories are consistent with the data, but the Rapid-Decay theory explains the data more directly, as it directly predicts a decaying magnetic field. If the Dynamo theory is correct (as the majority of scientists say it is) then we just happen to be living during one of the times when the earth's magnetic field is decreasing. The next thing we can observe about the magnetic field is that throughout the history of the earth, it has reversed a few times. What this means is that during certain times in the earth's past, there is evidence to indicate that the field actually pointed in the opposite direction. (Let me clarify, it's not to say the earth's magnetic field strength is growing, but has pointed the other direction) How do scientists know this? Well, there are certain materials in the crust that are naturally magnetic. These materials tend to point in the direction of the magnetic field, like a current compass that we use almost everyday. In certain rock layers of the crust, however, the natural magnets imbedded in the rock are pointed in the opposite direction. This would indicate that when those rock layers formed, the earth's magnetic field was actually pointed in the opposite direction, as compared to the direction in which it is pointed today. Which theory best explains this fact? Well, they both do. Once again, however, one theory has the edge. This time, it is the Dynamo theory. The Dynamo theory predicts such reversals, because it predicts that the fluid motion in the inner core, will, every now and again, reverse. This will cause the magnetic field to reverse. The Rapid-Decay theory allows for such magnetic field reversals, too, but only in the event of cataclysmic volcanic and geological activity. If such activity happened in the past, the Rapid-Decay theory allows for several magnetic reversals as well. However since the Dynamo theory predicts such behavior, and the Rapid Decay theory only allows for such behavior if certain things happened in the past, the Dynamo theory is a better explanation of the fact that the earth's magnetic field has reversed in the past. Now GoldRock, even though the Dynamo theory is better at directly explaining the fact that earth's magnetic field has reversed in the past, a detail of these reversals is a serious problem for the Dynamo theory. The Dynamo theory predicts that changes in the magnetic field will occur slowly, because it takes time for the temperature differences in the core to cause the fluid flow to change. As a result, the Dynamo theory predicts that reversals in the earth's magnetic field should happen slowly. Many Dynamo theory calculations, for example, indicate that 2,000 years is the minimum time frame for a magnetic field reversal. However, since 1989, scientists have found evidence that at least some reversals have happened over a period of 15 days or less. While this time scale is a problem for the Dynamo theory, it fits well in the Rapid-Decay theory, since that theory assumes such reversals are the result of cataclysmic volcanic and geographic activity, which would cause rapid changes. The final thing we can observe is the magnetic fields of other planets. After all, any theory that explains the earth's magnetic field should be able to explain the magnetic fields of the other planets that have them, right? It should also be able to explain why certain planets do not have magnetic fields. Which theory best fits the data in this case? Only the Rapid-Decay theory. The Rapid-Decay theory has correctly calculated the magnetic field of every planet that has one. By contrast, the Dynamo theory cannot even correctly predict which planets have a magnetic field and which planets do not. The Dynamo theory, for example, predicts a magnetic field on the planet Mars, while the Rapid-Decay theory says there was a magnetic field there in the past, but there should not be one now. The data indicate that Mars currently has no planetary magnetic field. Conversely, the Dynamo theory predicts no magnetic field on Mercury, while the Rapid-Decay theory predicts that Mercury should have a magnetic field. It turns out that Mercury does have a magnetic field. Even more convincing, years before the Voyager spacecraft measured the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, scientists used both the Rapid-Decay theory and the Dynamo theory to make predictions of the strength of both planets' magnetic fields. The Rapid-Decay theory correctly predicted the results of Voyager's measurements, while the Dynamo theory was off by a factor of 100,000! In the realm of science you may know, a theory that attempts to explain a phenomenon we cannot observe directly must be consistent with any measurements scientists make. In the case of a planet's magnetic field, only the Rapid-Decay theory is consistent with all measurement data. So, you may be scratching you head on this question. Why, then, do the majority of scientists believe in the Dynamo theory. Well Goldy, it turns out that the Rapid-Decay theory has two consequences that the majority of scientists don't want to believe. First, in order to be consistent with the idea of magnetic field reversals, the Rapid-Decay theory must rely on a global, cataclysmic event. Most scientists don't believe that such an event ever occurred. Scientists that believe in the worldwide flood during Noah's time, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid-Decay theorists say that an event such as the Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory. The other consequence makes even more scientists uneasy. The timescale of the Rapid-Decay theory is on the order of a few thousand years. In fact, according to the way the Rapid-Decay theory is constructed, the earth must have been formed less than 10,000 years ago. This makes many geologists uneasy, because they want to believe the earth is much older than that! Thus, since the Rapid-Decay theory assumes that a worldwide, cataclysmic event such as Noah's flood occurred sometime in earth's past, and since the Rapid-Decay theory concludes that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old, most scientists reject it. They reject it despite the fact that it is the only theory consistent with all of the data collected. Christians (such as myself) who believe that the entire book of Genesis should be taken as literal history, of course, have no problem with assuming that Noah's flood really happened and that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Thus, it is easy for them to accept the consequences of the Rapid-Decay theory. As a result, most of the scientists who believe the Rapid-Decay theory are Christians who have a very strict, literal view of Genesis." You're welcome for explaining all that.

1400 posts.

Oh, what email system are you using? If it's Gmail, the email will be in the "Promotions" folder. Agreed. But the devs this year seem to be pretty pro.

It's not just their lifetime, but anybody-who-has-ever-recorded-this-stuff's lifetime, which has been going on for more or less 200 years. Well, according to that comment evolution is a change in progress. Pretty simple. However, if it's a change in progress wouldn't all life forms of that change be changed into that change? So theWhy are there still apes type of questions don't seem so invalid to me, because if one ape (or many) evolved into humans, wouldn't all apes turn into humans and not be stuck at what they are now?

hm.....what I would do is PM "FederalBureauFBI" with the topic "Cannot seem to register" (up to you, this is what I'd do) and explain the situation with a few screenshots. If he can't find out the solution, I'd make a spam email address (inbox.com is my favorite, but it expires after 90 days of inactivity) and confirm your account there, and register there. FBI should be able to help though :)

um....wut? Yes I pose my God as no beginning and no end. How is that relevant to the universe? He made the universe, yes. But how does that mean the universe is eternal and has no cause? After all, the universe needs a beginning. A god, a true God, doesn't need a beginning. He's God. He can do anything. Why would that need a beginning? A universe needs a beginning because it is NOT a god. It's a universe, with all things inside it. That's a very big page, but I read what I did so forgive me if I skipped a very important part. However it seems that this is saying that in order for this collection to happen, you'd need no oxygen. "Oxygenless". This is the sentence I couldn't agree more with. So, if all we are is to adapt and survive, there seems to be no purpose. You seem to act as if evolution has a mind. It doesn't. So, if we all committed suicide, it wouldn't matter at all. Because all we are are just some organic material living in this world for nothing. There's no point. No purpose. While it has nothing (or not much) to do with this argument, it's significant when thinking about life in general. -Yes survival is part of evolution. We, or even animals, can choose to survive best we can. Clearly, and I agree to that. However, you can't just expect organisms to change their structure in a quick moment when they can't survive no longer. -Okay then. We have only records of what stuff has looked like in the past say 1k years. Even 500 years ago , we're not sure what life was like, but we have an idea. But you're saying that we're going to need a couple million years to see any difference? How then can we find out how evolution is true in this aspect, if we need millions of years that are not recorded. Also, don't you think that with a million years (as I've heard evolutionists state that humans have been around for 2.5 million years according to a pro biologist chart) we'd have technology a lot longer ago, and we'd have more evidence and already have a mind to record everything that has happened? Think about it please. If humans were alive in 2.5 m B.C., then wouldn't we at least have the common sense to record everything 1 M years ago? Both theories I believe have rationality to it, and both can be a bit irrational. However, the question is, which is more rational? And that can only be done with scientific experiment.

Okay. While the dynamo theory also can follow up with it, do you agree that the magnetic field has steadily decreased by 7% since the last careful research 170 years ago, and the energy of the magnetic field has decreased by 14%? While this is indirect observation (just like most of this thread) since 1000 A.D. the magnetic field intensity has been estimated to be decreased by 40%. Thoughts? Thank-you for replying by the way, instead of continuing with that silly argument :)

Did you clear your cookies and try again?

No, but I'm a little sure you should have at least m0 one of the format hulls and turrets. Isida is not allowed. Here is the format. Possible Combinations: Railgun+Hunter, Twins+Wasp, Thunder+Hornet, Ricochet+Viking, Twins+Viking, Thunder+Hunter, Ricochet+Wasp, Railgun+Hornet, Thunder+Wasp, Ricochet+Hunter, Twins+Hornet, Railgun+Viking, Ricochet+Hornet, Thunder+Viking, Twins+Hunter, and the mosquito/Railgun+Wasp

hm.....while it's not like I don't trust you, but can you go into "Invite Friends" and check the "Red" part of this image to be your email? If it is, then clear your cookies and try registering again.

Are you sure that this email is hooked with the account? It should be after the players are announced. :) Thanks!

They don't have to choose anybody, they choosing is completely random.

Because correctors are useful. I can type fast, have a million errors, and it'll fix all of them :ph34r: MAGIC!

Looking back at last Developers vs. Players battle--no. You better bet I'm registered ^_^

And those are? Please explain, because the way I see you're yet to prove micro-organisms created the world/a big bang or whatever did it. According to Evolutionists and Creationists alike, I've seen they've said that science cannot prove anything really. Especially not indirect observation. Now, while we're yet to prove there's a god, you just put yourself in a queer statement because you should know science cannot prove anything and that even if it did you haven't got much more progress if any in explaining your theory. Now, a god seems pretty realistic to be honest. This is a wonderful life, with loads of dangers that could kill us all on earth or greatly threaten us if there was on a protection barrier. (Such as the ozone field being there to protect us from the wicked rays from the sun, or the magnetic field protecting us all in all) So if a god put it all in place, that would make much more sense when I look at it. Also, if he's a god, it would make much more sense than a big bang creating the world and everything in existence because a big bang is a "object" looking at it technically. It's an explosion, yes? A god is a god so a god could live forever. Noone ever needed to create the god. Because it's a god. Our God. However, I did request you to explain it to me, and you didn't do that. In fact, you made it more complicated and twisted and just said the evolutionist argument has better explanations. Tell me what they are, please. Well then please prove me wrong. Because to me it seems like Evolutionists (or distracted Evolutionists) favorite and most despicable argument to get away from a subject. Back to topic please, because I need to know if this is the only argument you guys have. Thank-you, Jonathan That's kind of what it says in Revelation. -Well that's an interesting statement. -So, they have a mind of their own to adapt, now? -So how long now? How long to see a small yet significant difference in the human face? Because there has not been a change to humans in the last 1k years. There's the question of the centuries IMO. Because if Apes were evolved into humans, wouldn't there be no Apes? Or if Apes evolved into humans, wouldn't other creatures such as Monkeys, Giraffes, or Lions evolve into someone greater as well that can be civilized.

I got this. jonber POWA! #firstcontest #imnewtothisthing