搜索结果: *

Pafoot 说:

Will I still be able to play other mods?

点击展开...

Not in the same folder, but you can install M&B to a second folder e.g. Mount&Blade2 and install other mods there.

Садко 说:

Could you tell when the patch will be out and if it will be save compatible? Thanks.

点击展开...

On the mbx forum, this question was answered:
[quote author=GetAssista]We are aming on save-compartible patch this weekend. That is, you would be able to play your previous saves. However, all the patchings for item and troop stats, as well as faction relations and composition of existing parties, will be changed only in a new game, since this info is stored in a savegame.[/quote]

Mork the Pig 说:

if you go to download version 2.4 it says the link is broken to mount and blade repository

点击展开...

I think the format of download links to the repository has changed.
The Last Days 2.4 can be downloaded at http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=61 (and M&B 0.808 at http://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?id=1706).

Leprechaun 说:

But, as they said, they're actually making progress in understanding how the chemistry could fit the results. Not to mention that either way could be wrong - it's a normal scientific procedure to exhaust every avenue of possibility before giving up on your system altogether.

点击展开...

Fair enough. But seeing that these (like many other) scientists have an interest in the outcome of their research, I remain skeptical.

I rest my case, though it may not be very strong, because I really need to finish a report.

Ilex 说:

We have some ideas about the chemistry that might allow such preservation, but we're still in the process of working it out.

点击展开...

Hmm I guess then it's possible for DNA survive for that long. It was long considered an impossibility. The things you learn!

点击展开...

I quote again: "According to all of our models and all bench-top experiments exposing proteins to artificial conditions, it [shouldn't be possible]"

The situation is as follows: A fossil dated at 80 millions years old contains molecules that, according to all known chemistry models and experiments, cannot possibly be millions of years old. There are two things a scientist can do: A) Reconcile the chemistry with the given date of the fossil, or B) challenge its dating. The former is of course chosen by these scientists because the latter would ruin their reputation and effectively end their career. Very few scientists are prepared to take that path.

Ilex 说:

Well preserved? Well if we did have well preserved DNA from dinosaurs from less than 6000 years ago, Jurassic Park wouldn't be just a movie (or a book if you want to be anal about it), if you catch my drift. DNA can survive for tens of thousands of years in right conditions. Unfortunately for us millions of years back (that's when dinosaurs lived) is just too much.

点击展开...

Did I say anything about DNA? Paleontologists have found preserved blood cells and proteins (see e.g. this article)
quote from the article:

Schweitzer says that the scepticism that greeted her tyrannosaur discovery was "appropriate" but her new results strongly support the idea that soft tissues and their original proteins can be preserved at least since the late Cretaceous period. How is that even possible?

"Well that's the real interesting question, isn't it?", agrees Schweitzer. "According to all of our models and all bench-top experiments exposing proteins to artificial conditions, it [shouldn't be possible]. That is an area of active research in my lab. We're in the process of testing that very question through actualistic experiments and other means. We have some ideas about the chemistry that might allow such preservation, but we're still in the process of working it out. Stay tuned!"

As for ancient cave paintings proving creationism; I'd say it's more likely that aliens used holograms (or even giant robots) of dinosaurs to early people to **** with their minds. You don't need to complex things up with something as unfathomable as Yahweh.

点击展开...

Did I even mention JHWH? Anyway, there's less evidence of aliens or ancient robots than there is of a God existing, so if you have nothing better to suggest I think I'll stick with my ridiculous beliefs.

I can't believe we are actually debating this. Go ask any reasonable biologist (not any of the nutters) and he'll laugh you out of his office (or if he is nice he'll point out where you are wrong).

点击展开...

And how do I distinguish the reasonable ones from the nutters? Oh wait, let me guess: if he doesn't agree with you it must be a nutter.

Lord Leoric of Wercheg 说:

Dinosaurs. Genesis didn't mention them but we know they exist. What's creationism's say on that?

点击展开...

Well, Genesis doesn't specifically mention penguins, moose or flying squirrels either. What's your point? Creationism doesn't need to say anything about dinosaurs. Obviously dinosaurs are an extinct type of animal.

vadermath 说:

You silly man, everyone knows that dinosaurs were created by the Devil!

点击展开...

If anything, dinosaurs are a problem for conventional paleontology, for the resemblance of dinosaurs and dragons in ancient myths and depictions, together with the well-preserved soft tissues and proteins of some dinosaurs support the position that dinosaurs have only gone extinct fairly recently.

James 说:

Well, from a fundy point of view, if you're telling the truth, you're a lesbian, and thus going to hell.

点击展开...

and if you're not telling the truth, then you are a liar and therefore also going to hell according to the bible...

Shatari 说:

Side note: Christianity needs better quality control...

点击展开...

Christianity isn't an organization you know...
Unless there are conditions for calling yourself a christian, there's no way for people to have any control over other 'christians', just like blonde people have no control over other blondes.

Anyway, this is terrible indeed and the police needs to take measures to find out about this kind of abuse somewhat earlier in the future (if at all possible).

25/25, but I had to guess the average length of an american. I'm not used to use feet/inches.

Archonsod 说:

Good external discipline encourages strong self discipline.

点击展开...

Possibly for the first time I've got to agree with Archonsod.

[quote author=Solomon]He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him.[/quote]
QFT.

Magorian Aximand 说:

And the snake who tempted Eve was what? If evil did not exist in the world, how could it be a concept for humans to choose?

点击展开...

According to traditional christian understanding (and I can't say that I know enough of this subject to judge on this, but it does make sense to me), the snake is a disguise of the devil/satan. Satan is an angel who has become disobedient to God. Angels, like humans, were created good and with a free will. The first evil was therefore a choice made by angels and the first humans were deceived by one of these to do evil.

And yet man was created in His image.

点击展开...

Yes, in His image, but an image is not the same as the original. One of the aspects of this image is free will. We are also born (in a way) in the image of our parents, yet we may make radically different choices.

Interesting as well is that god did not want Adam and Eve to eat from the tree because he feared them becoming "Godlike" once they had knowledge.

点击展开...

Those are the words of the snake. Can you trust them? After all, it is evident that humans are not become Godlike, even though the snake promised them that.

Just to be clear, I am not attacking Christianity. Just provoking thought and conversation.

点击展开...

And I appreciate your thoughtful comments

Instag0 说:

He could create a world such that we experience free will in the absence of evil.

点击展开...

Indeed, you are right and He did (according to the bible). The world was created entirely good and free from evil. The humans that were created did however have a free will. They chose to do evil.
If however, you are referring to a world in which the creatures are unable to do evil, this would mean that they do not have a truly free will.

If he could create such a world, but chose not to, then he is a malevolent God

点击展开...

Even though God did create a world like that, I don't agree with that argument, because if evil is done by the free will of men, it is not God, but men who are malevolent.

and if he is not a benevolent God, he is not a theistic God.

点击展开...

What exactly is a 'theistic God'? (I honestly don't understand. To me it just means 'godly God'. A non-theistic god I would consider a contradiction in terms. English is not my native language.)

fisheye 说:

I'm guessing you're saying that theistic gods are all basically Zeus: big male human, unlimited magical power, white beard, sadistic attitude, insufferable superiority complex, insatiable rapist (yeah the Christian god did that, I don't remember him asking for permission before impregnating Mary with Jesus).

点击展开...

None of these attributes apply to the christian God (except maybe 'insufferable superiority complex', which is quite logical and not really a complex. He's just ultimately superior.) And you are quite far off the mark on that last one. Even if there really was a sexual impregnation (for which I see no evidence), do you normally consider every sexual act rape by default unless proven otherwise? Anyway, when the angel predicted the birth of Jesus one year before He was born, Mary responded "be it unto me according to thy word." So, according to the bible, Mary agreed to become the mother of Jesus.

Sir Lulzalot 说:

Well yeah... it is after all your church. So they need some form of severely biased proof or what would you be there for in the first place? What matters is that you can get unbiased proof that doesn't come from the Christian Coalition or whatever.

点击展开...

There is no such thing as 'unbiased proof', because no unbiased people exist, especially when it concerns the existance of God. Talking about the bible, much of it is not verifiable, but the parts of history described in the bible that can be compared to other sources are indeed largely confirmed by (secular) archeologists.

Tiberius Decimus Maximus 说:

Well then there is some sort of outside influence that pretty much forces you (because no one wants to pay a fine) to vote, so the system isn't entirely 'free'.

点击展开...

It doesn't force you to vote, it only forces you to show up, you can always vote blank. Just like you are 'forced' to go to school in many countries. So not everything is free, but the electoral system is.

I am not in favor of the EU, but rather of its predecessor, the EEC (European Economic Community). I think it is a good thing that European countries work together on economic level, but I don't think this organization should be involved in law-making or in national policies.

ealabor 说:

The last thing you want to do is hand over your sovereignty.

点击展开...

I agree. European governments have over the years handed a lot of their authority to the EU, without their population's consent. Whenever citizens vote to oppose these changes, like with the European Constitution in France, the Netherlands and later Ireland, the only thing that is done is invent ways to circumvent or ignore the voice of the people. When I vote for the government of my country, I place my trust in a national party and not in the European Union. Politicians can be 'unelected', but powers given to an international organization cannot be regained (at least not through the vote of the people). I don't want to be ruled by the French and the German (no offense though). In short I think the EU is undemocratic and dangerous to the souvereignity of its members.

Yes, I know what he meant. I only wanted to point out that an artist impression of God has nothing to do with christianity. But I'm sure Redcoat Mic is aware of that, so just ignore that part.

Redcoat - Mic 说:

You see that's the pill I could never swallow.

I don't beleive religion should be allowed to evolve. It's the word of God. The word of God does not change. You can't just simply say "oh we were founded on those commands but now we don't really care about them anymore, we see them more as metaphors to do whatever the hell we want".
To me religion is a belief in the God's, that's it. Not a social group, not a community builder, not grouping of culture, these are all secondary effects.

点击展开...

Well said.The beliefs of people who take from a religion only what they like cannot be taken seriously How can they believe a religion that they just made up themselves? A religion is indeed based on a belief, and to base your beliefs on what 'truth' seems convenient or pleasant to you is not really honest towards yourself.

The primary effect of Christianity should be you believe in a bearded man and believe in his words recorded in the Bible.

点击展开...

I wonder which bearded man you are talking about. Sure, many people of the time had beards, but I know of no particular 'bearded man' whos words are recorded in the bible. or do you mean king David? His beard is mentioned once I think, but I wouldn't call a belief in him the central part of christianity.

Llew2 说:

Personally, I find most philosophical arguments attempting to say anything about God to be a waste of time. Besides, most of them are flawed because they imagine God arguing and thinking in the same way a man would.

点击展开...

I am basing my arguments on what God tells us about himself, in the Bible. It is when people deviate from that and try to apply their own personal biases to God that things start getting screwed.

点击展开...

You're absolutely right. That part of my post wasn't really directed at you or anyone in particular. I meant purely philosophical arguments, i.e. without considering or understanding the biblical concept of God. If an argument is based on the bible, it is indeed a theological as well as a philosophical argument.

Llew2 说:

Thing is, there is already a thread for creationist bashing. Instag0 made this one for philosophical discussion of Lewis's ideas about God.

点击展开...

Well, that's fine, for I have no intention of bashing creationists
No, but seriously, I have seen no posts in this thread about creationism, only about God and Christianity and I thought those were relevant. However, if this thread is only meant for philosophical discussion, I won't post other stuff here anymore.

Personally, I find most philosophical arguments attempting to say anything about God to be a waste of time. Besides, most of them are flawed because they imagine God arguing and thinking in the same way a man would.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
  - Isaiah 55:8-9