^Agreed. Sad to see you go :c

Ooh, that's great! Thanks! ^_^

There are many religious people who support evolution, and many non-religious people who refute evolution. Your point here is not relevant.

Ja, on @GoldRock. The user below has M2 Smoky.

Nice welcome you gave him :lol: (EDIT) I am, of course, referring to the brisk manner of your post, and nothing more.

That's really quite an absurd question. It's like saying "Wouldn't it be rascist to say that orangutans aren't chimpanzees?"... It's not just a question of appearance - Neanderthals were a different species altogether. Different anatomy, different psychology. This image might help: There was a bit of inter-breeding between our ancestors and the Neanderthals, leading to some of the human races we see today. However, our ancestors and the Neanderthals were two distinct species. My answer: As I said before, we ourselves are the 'missing links' - we are halway through the process of evolving from our prehistoric human ancestors, to whatever super-duper awesome humanoid species will descend from us millions of years in the future. If you ask that question again, I will ignore it. I would instead encourage you to read my response, ask about any part of my explanation you wish me to clarify, and specifically analyse and respond to my answer in your next post(s). Fossils of prehistoric animals are everywhere, there's a load of them being discovered to this day... How d'you think we know so much about dinosaurs, for example...? As for your last question, that's the whole point... New animals evolved from the old, so the old ones died out. It's like new technology, developed from old technology, rendering that old technology obsolete, for example. Evolution does not quite work like Pokemon - an iPhone 4 will not suddenly change into an iPhone 5 in your hand! The iPhone 5 is developed from the iPhone 4 - people discard their iPhone 4s when they get the newer iPhone 5s. Simple as. In the same way, the animals of an old species will reproduce, and then their offspring will reproduce, then the next set will reproduce... gradually altering the whole species and forming new ones over time, much in the same way as new versions of phones are developed. An iPhone 1 is still the same 'species' as an iPhone 5, as an iPhone 5 is merely an improved descendant in the same species (after 5 years or so) - however, these come from older 'species' (e.g. a brick-like mobile phone, made 25 years ago) which have now completely died out. _________________________ Before we continue our discussion, I challenge all the non-evolutionists here to watch all of the following video: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hOfRN0KihOU This is because I fear that some of you lot do not fully understand how the concept works. I, at least, have taken the time to understand creationism (though I may not agree with it)... so it's only fair that you take the time to understand evolution. At the moment, our debate is becoming counter-productive, simply due to a lack of understanding. I know it's 11 minutes long, but that video will really help debunk the common myths you might associate with the theory, as well as answering @already.dead's questions in full.

No double posting pls Mr. Consultant :P

I'm not going to quote my explanation again, you know... There are no half creatures because we are half creatures. We're halfway between primitive man and whatever super-duper form of man we'll see in the future :P Now stop asking that question over and over... or at least respond to the quoted answer I've given above! As for Neanderthals... nope, they were not human. They were yet another species evolved from apes, and had human-like qualities (ie they had the ability to reason, albeit not very well). Once our own ancestors came about, the Neanderthals were outclassed, and soon died out as the inferior species.

As humans, we are animals. Monkeys are animals too. Maybe those who want to go onto further education in scientific fields would disagree with your assertion? I think it's about time that a few of those in the older generation realise that there is at least some credibility to modern scientific concepts, and that they should be accepted as valid beliefs alongside religion. In any case, more than half of religious believers in the US support evolution. "Abiogenesis, or biopoiesis, is the natural process by which life arose from non-living matter such as simple organic compounds. The earliest life on Earth existed at least 3.5 billion years ago, during the Eoarchean Era when sufficient crust had solidified following the molten Hadean Eon. On November 8, 2013, scientists reported the discovery of what may be the earliest actual signs of life on Earth - the complete fossils of a microbial mat (associated with sandstone in western Australia) estimated to be 3.48 billion years old." This is what you would've read had you clicked the link ^_^ Yes, actually - if the rock contains organic matter (containing carbon), then it may lead to the development of very simple life forms (micro-organisms and so on), and then they would develop from there. For example: "- The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis suggests that the atmosphere of the early Earth may have been chemically reducing in nature, composed primarily of methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), water (H2O), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and phosphate (PO43-), with molecular oxygen (O2) and ozone (O3) either rare or absent. - In such a reducing atmosphere, electrical activity can catalyze the creation of certain basic small molecules (monomers) of life, such as amino acids. This was demonstrated in the Miller–Urey experiment by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey reported in 1953. - Phospholipids (of an appropriate length) can form lipid bilayers, a basic component of the cell membrane..." ...and so on. Viruses, for example, are argued to be non-living because they are so simple, even though they can enter and attack our bodies. Basically, the line between living matter and non-living matter is not as clear as one might think. In summary, organic matter/elements on the Earth can lead to the formation of very basic life, under the right conditions. This basic life evolved into more complex forms, over billions of years.

I would have given a similar answer to this, already.dead; nicely phrased ^_^

Great work ^_^

Well put ^_^

They're not - I think it's more when staff members become over-defensive of the current system (which I'm sorry to say is clearly flawed) that annoys people, especially when all they have to say on controversial issues is to compliment the game/forum. This hasn't entirely happened to you, I don't think, but maybe you seem a little more... restricted, and a little more defensive of the staff. Don't know whether that's good ot bad in your case - either way, you're still a great guy, but it's the lack of self-criticism and self-analysis by the staff is what's annoying players at the moment. To bring forwards a small example, when I was staff, I posted that the Russians were most likely going to win the Mister Tanki contest when it was announced, not in an insulting way but in a factual one, as the quality of their entries was likely to be better than ours; I was basically criticising the fact that all three communities were combined. Supposedly, this influenced other players to say the same, as they saw I was staff and listened to me... though I wasn't the first to point it out. Anyway, the moral of the story is I got reprimanded for doing that, so I can't blame you for being a little more restricted. Guess who won the Mister Tanki contest in the end (and 4th place wasn't a winning spot last time I checked)?

Of course. Insults/profanity is never acceptable, whatever the reason for it.

Which is why I said without insulting. Anyway, already been to the correct administrator, but thanks ^_^ Me? I won't. I like to think I am part of a free society, in which everyone has the equal right to express their own opinions. Problem?

I understand not discussing bans, but what's wrong with constructively discussing the moderation system in general, without being insulting and without referring to specific mods (just yet)? That would clearly bring the forum closer to a place where freedom of speech is encouraged...

1. Me, 2. myself, 3. and I.

Player GoldRock3 has been banned for a week. Reason: Violation of forum rules. Public discussions of moderators' and Administrators' activities p.2.18=>.Rules

I'll have a go ^_^

What has that quote got to do with change being good? :huh: Anyway, under that logic I'm an unreasonable man :p

Well, I can PM you the explanation I was given through Skype by these important people if you wish, because I don't really get it either.

See you D:

Welcome back! :lol:

Well, certain important people have already explained to Sel and I why swearing at someone with negative intention isn't insulting, after it having happened to us, so personally I think the definition of what's insulting and what's not is a little messed up in the current system...