Recent content by JCampbell

I think, given Valve's track record, that the longer they spend on a game, the better it will be. I can't speak for the other mentioned games, but HL1 was delayed, and HL2 was delayed; they turned out pretty awesome if you ask me.

I guess you wanted every other game where a big beefy bad guy takes 100+ direct rocket hits before it crashes eh? Rocket launchers aren't exactly a poor man's weapon you know.

Heh...didn't actually catch onto that.

Check your PM's, Ikerious.

I think you need to define what you mean by speciation. There are typically two claims being made in regards to speciation: 1) That unequivocally *new* genetic information has appeared -- meaningful genetic code that did not previously exist anywhere, in any population of such organisms...

Correct. Correct. Since this has never been demonstrated on the scale that you propose (ie goo to you), and since you have given no sources to support this "fact" of macroevolution, your point stands on nothing. You simply extrapolate the given evidence of microevolution and make a huge leap...

I guess I have to use different words, as your interpretation of my meaning of the word species in the sense of "one species turning into another one" has led you to believe that I think all life is classifiable under these terms. Understandably, there are gaps and overlaps in the...

Do you really think I should take that site seriously? Look at this claim: I can't believe they would use such a recockulous example as evidence that evolution can account for IC. Any program written to show such an event is starting with what we have now, and working backwards. It already has...

You're not suggesting I leave all those points unrefuted?;)

He asked me to define what I think of species as. I did at the end of my rebuttal to his 12 or so points against what I was saying. I followed through. At least read what's going on before making silly claims.

1.That's not actually a fact, as if you had bothered to look at any of the sources, you would see that they are not all "thirty-y-o." Besides, since you haven't made any claims contrary to what I've linked (aside from pointing out that one of them was conjecture, with really is saying nothing)...

How does the fact that they're creationists discredit them. And the age of the information has nothing to do with how valid it is, seeing as how you haven't brought up any information to the contrary. Look. Nothing is ever 100% fact, so one has to weigh the evidence as to what is more...

Yes. No. No; they landed in the Sea of Tranquility. They also had a rover and scouted the lunar surface. More information on moon dust here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.asp You know, saying someone is a creationist doesn't immediately discredit them, as the more vocal...

Since you haven't exclaimed why you think this is 'rubbish,' or what 'snips' the author of the article has made, I can only assume that you think so because of the supposed 'mounds of data' speaking to the contrary, which you conveniently forgot to give. Different argument altogether. Rubbish...

Hardyhar Sounds good. Since you haven't provided any sources for your claims, I ask you to read this article On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds. http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp Fair enough, but in the above paragraph, you have shown 3 (at least one of which is not even a...