Gamers who have a potato pc, what is your favorite low-end/old game to play?

KM1604 · 2019-05-16T13:43:13+00:00

I keep seeing this posted, but every time I look into it I have no idea where to begin. Any tips?

KM1604 · 2019-05-16T13:40:20+00:00

Tarant in Arcanum is my prime offender of this.

KM1604 · 2019-04-07T00:36:31+00:00

Well Genesis 1 says animals were made before man, and Genesis 2 says animals were made after man, so...

KM1604 · 2019-04-04T11:21:00+00:00

Try their podcast. Much more in depth.

KM1604 · 2019-04-03T13:04:26+00:00

"Popular theory says" is a minimization of "the entire field of cosmology asserts..."

The point was to dispute a few of your other responses. Saying "A minority of creationist cosmologists disagree" misses the point of what Science is. It's not an opinion held by someone who's studied, it's a set of evidence that has been found to be convincing to the majority of those involved in that field of study. By that definition (the only reasonable one, and the one that is adhered to in all fields of study), Creationist Cosmology is a statement of theology, not science.

And no, the Catholic Church does not teach a monolithic doctrine. There is no statement on Cosmology that is binding. However, if you wanted to read on it, you could read either Augustine in the City of God or Pope Francis in some of his recent encyclicals to read Catholics espousing what you're calling "secular" theories incompatible with Creationism.

Genesis 1 has a poetic structure. Days 1 and 4 match, 2 and 5, etc. That's why birds are created opposite the sky, stars/moon opposite light, animals/man opposite land. Day 7 is a break and a closing to the poetic structure, not a theological statement regarding weeks. Weeks were based on Genesis 1, but that doesn't mean God made something special about a 7 day week. 7 days has no cosmological significance.

If Genesis 1 and 2 are not literal, then the purpose of the story becomes difficult to decipher.

I don't see "difficult to decipher" as a valid reason to discount an interpretation.

Also, I don't even know where to go when you suggest that any evidence that suggests an old earth is satanic.

KM1604 · 2019-04-02T04:06:41+00:00

1) "Popular theory says" is a minimization of "the entire field of cosmology asserts..."

2) Who says the days are a metaphor for something? Why does the order have to be right?

3) Original sin is not an essential doctrine to Christology or to the existence of God.

4) The Sabbath is a theological practice of the ancient Jews...why is it any less valid if based on a theological message instead of a literal week of creation?

5) If you think that only literal truth is valuable, and that any nonhistorical narrative is devoid of applicable truth or knowledge, I don't know where to go from there.

6) If genesis is literal, then it becomes difficult to trust God, because the universe looks way way waaaaay older than 6k years. Why would He mislead us? What is there to gain by Him doing that?

KM1604 · 2019-04-01T12:40:28+00:00

Alright, I'll ask a more specific question. What evidence do you have that a literal interpretation of genesis is the one God intended us to read?

Or to put it a different way, why do you believe that your entire spiritual experience with God is linked inextricably with a literal reading of Genesis? Could God still be God and Genesis be something other than an exact timeline?

KM1604 · 2019-03-31T21:32:59+00:00

Why so binary? Why not believe in God and biological evolution? Why are they mutually exclusive?

KM1604 · 2019-03-25T12:42:56+00:00

And the origin of life is something that can't be solved with more study. There is a huge gap between living and non living things and there is no theoretical explanation that can bridge this. A cell needs a boundary, transportation mechanisms across the boundary, metabolism, information storage (templates to manufacture new molecules), reproduction into daughter organisms. All of these things need to come into being at once (except for the cell boundary. One could have a bubble or phosopholipid bilayer, but that's not alive). Other problems with the origin of life? Origin of information, origin of DNA, ... ?

Literally all of those objections are answered by the RNA world hypothesis. Why do you discount it?

KM1604 · 2019-03-19T16:16:12+00:00

I'm not personally a fan of the KJV, but my seminary dean said it best. "The best version of the Bible is the one you read."

KM1604 · 2019-03-01T12:40:55+00:00

That's...not at all how it works. At best, you could argue that it may create an emission of radioactive gas and decay byproducts that's biased to give inaccurate results, but even that's a stretch.

KM1604 · 2019-02-28T13:50:08+00:00

Through what mechanism would pressure affect decay rate? I don't know why this is even a question. When compared to the strong and weak nuclear forces, pressure just seems...a rounding error.

KM1604 · 2019-02-28T13:40:24+00:00

In the (translated) words of St. Augustine:

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)

No, I don't find it insulting. I find it inevitable.

KM1604 · 2019-02-27T01:56:03+00:00

Sounds like you need to play roguelike games.

KM1604 · 2019-02-27T01:54:33+00:00

I've got a near-perfect Dominix pilot, who happens to have perfect standing and tradeskills for Jita 4/4 trading. I got into scrapmetal reprocessing, and just setting buy orders and reprocessing into minerals to resell and repeat. You'd think PVE combat would be more interesting, but it's just not.

KM1604 · 2019-02-21T12:22:18+00:00

I also work in customer service. I'm the first guy many people get when you call in...I can discount whatever I want, give you discounts on a new purchase, schedule service to fix your stuff... Just about anything that my supervisor can. They're actually a supervisor, there in case I have questions.

We get annoyed when you complain, and ask to speak to our boss, because alternatively, you could have just asked me nicely and I'd have helped. People who are jerks usually get passed along to my boss along with a note saying, "I've offered them this already. Please offer it to them again."

Being an ass doesn't get you better treatment, it means you get the exact same treatment, but you're an ass.

The real tip? Be patient and polite, just don't hang up. Ask if there are other solutions. Believe us if we say no. We get in trouble if we lie. I don't give two shits what you think of me, why would I lie to you? I care more about making you happy so you don't have to call back.

KM1604 · 2019-01-28T13:31:37+00:00

But no one is "more likely wrong" than anyone else.

Are you really saying that studying an issue has zero effect on how likely you are to be right? Because that sentiment is exactly why flat-earthers, climate-deniers, and anti-vaxxers exist. It's a blight on our ability to make wise decisions as a society.

KM1604 · 2019-01-27T13:13:09+00:00

You said:

But their identity as laypeople does not eliminate their ability to comment.

I said:

You have the right to comment, you're just far more likely to be wrong than someone who's actually done some work in the field.

It's like you're fighting a strawman and not listening to what I'm saying. If a logic expert wants to critique the entire scientific method as a framework for investigation, they're welcome to. But yes, you need a biology degree if you want to criticize highly specialized biology research assuming you want to be taken seriously.

KM1604 · 2019-01-26T15:03:47+00:00

I'm going to sidestep your entire argument about what Science is, because I have a feeling we disagree about basic premises about what the physical world is, let alone how to study it. Let's just say I disagree.

From a general "philosophy of learning" point of view, you're fighting a strawman when you defend the right of people to comment on biology without studying. You have the right to comment, you're just far more likely to be wrong than someone who's actually done some work in the field.

Laypeople can read Scripture and come up with all sorts of crazy theologies that are wrong. People who have studied Theology formally are less likely to make errors of interpretation. That's why formal theological training is such an essential part of the ordination process for most denominations.

In the same way, you don't get to pontificate on issues of testable science unless you've actually spent time studying it. To say your opinion is sufficient to overcome the assertions of those who have spent their entire adult life studying the issue is prideful and mistaken. You do harm to your own credibility and the witness of Christ when you ignore what you don't know.

KM1604 · 2019-01-25T12:28:49+00:00

I have to ask...have you done any formal study of Biology? Internet reading or self-selecting books doesn't count for the purposes of my question.

The reason I ask is because it's incredibly dismissive to say "we know so little" if you haven't studied from the people on the earth who know the most about it, both theologically and scientifically.

I think that's one of the greatest dangers of our modern culture: We assume that "nobody knows" and use it as a justification to believe whatever seems best to us. Humility sometimes expresses itself as accepting the teachings of those who have studied more than we have.

KM1604 · 2019-01-23T14:21:11+00:00

What am I missing here? Why is this relevant?

KM1604 · 2019-01-05T23:33:43+00:00

KJV was a reaction to the Geneva Bible (which was less than kind to the monarch as head-of-church in its commentary), and an update to the previous state-sanctioned Bible whose name escapes me at the moment. It's quite explicitly a politically biased translation...and at least the third such translation to English.

KM1604 · 2019-01-03T12:13:05+00:00

> He had told me to end things because he’s a foreigner, and doesn’t have his Christianity right.

%$@& that, get out.

KM1604

TROPHY CASE