Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Spore evolution Debate

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 16 posts ] 
Spore evolution Debate
Author Message
AshlocPosts: 8Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:25 pm

Post Spore evolution Debate

If people here are unfamilure with the Game Spore. It was a game created by Maxis and published under EA.

Spore was a game advertised and hyped as the Sim everything game. Following a Panspermia Style intro to the game you begin your quest to evolve from a single cell to a space race flying through the galaxy.

Needless to say the game was more like intelligent Design for nitwits. I stopped playing the game several months ago. I found it's game play and take on evolution too simple and obviously leaning towards ID.

It was a few months later that I found my way to the games forum where I made my displeasure at the game design known. Finding my way to the Science and Spore section of the game.

Now from that point I started noticing allot of Creationsits posting in this section.
I started making posts about the Scientific Method and Evolution. Providing Links to www.talkorgins.org and basically debunking creationists on this forum.

Some members of that forum have become familure with my debunking and look forward to my next post doing just that.

I figured this forum would like to get a taste of what I have been going up against. This is AtariMethod, Young earth creationist and master of stupid.

AtariMethod wrote:

Ashloc, just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they're stupid. Stupidity is evolution. The idea that God created by means of evolution goes against what His own word says. So, that's equally low.

You're also lying. THERE IS NO REAL FOSSIL RECORD. IT'S A SCIENTIFIC FACT. That's why evolution is continued to be taught as a theory in schools. It cannot be substantiated to the point as being related to as FACT.


To save you all the time. I posted a long reply backed up with links. references and Videos by AronRa and CDK007.

This was his reply.

AtariMethod wrote: Hello, I didn't ask for a "fossil." I stated a fossil record. That means a history of evolution as a species changes through the course of time. That's the Achilles heel of all evolutionists. You don't have one.

Ashloc, your boasting is getting as boring as your typos. You cannot substantiate the lie you seem to love so much.

Tell me, which did humans come from -- monkeys or apes? If they came from apes, why aren't they still giving birth to humans? If we came from monkeys how come women can't give birth to the fuzzy little things, but they can have a child that looks just like their great-grandmother?

Wow, I've never seen such a mass of propaganda, Ashloc. Just because a bunch of people believe something is so, doesn't mean that it is. They need hard evidence -- evolution has none. The fact that the universe is as well organized as it is-- is proof that creation took place. It's IMPOSSIBLE for all these complex things to have originated by shear accident.



Now you can starts to see the ad hominems have begun already. I had already explained a few posts back that I was dyslexic but had made great strides in overcoming this but still has issues with spelling. I did also admit that I was just being to lazy to spell check everything I wrote which was my own fault.

He continues after several people try to correct him.



Mutations that occur in human DNA, as small as you are stating here, result not in evolution, but in cell death. A simple biological fact makes your theory impossible. Any non-matching DNA that is produced in any animals living body is DESTROYED by its immune system. That's also a scientific fact. When the body stops ridding itself of those mutated cells and it builds up, its known as CANCER. Sorry, evolution is a lie -- period.



Atari then continues his attack against me LOL

The propaganda he is talking about are the videos from AronRA!

I find it interesting Ashloc that your stream of propaganda incorporates works of fiction like, Men in Black and The Matrix. Both of which have a lot in common with evolution -- another work of fiction. As far as your snippets that include false religious organizations you can keep them. The catholic organization is well founded in corruption. If catholic clergy would actually read the Bible they would figure out that it's OK for them to marry and not OK to practice pedophilia.

You have dyslexia, Ashloc. Tell me, is that a result of evolution because your DNA made a minuscule change and now you can't read or type properly, or is it just simple inherited imperfection


I believe that anyone here can see the direction mr Nitwit is going.

This one he wrote made me laugh as he dodged all questions asked to him and wrote this.


Tell me, do you like the idea of being the decedent of a monkey? Why don't you find that insulting? "Hi, my relatives were apes." It just sounds demeaning, because it is. If someone called you a smelly, termite munching, knuckle dragging, monkey I think you'd be insulted.

When a woman gives birth to a real monkey I will believe you.
Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:43 pm
irmerkUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 amLocation: California, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

He sounds as credible as me if I were to be making claims about quantum theory as if I knew a thing about it. He displays over and over his complete ignorance of biology, evolution, genetics and just plain science. Moreover, he has been indoctrinated by Mother Culture to believe he is separate from the animal kingdom and even above it in value. I doubt this person has ever faced opposition since his ill supported believes are so shaky - probably never had to evaluate or validate them.

Yeah, evolution is a fact. Yeah, we actually do have a fossil record; does he realize even that is amazing due to the likeliness a dead animal makes a fossil? No, evolution does not work linearly or as drastically and spontaneously as he seems to think. No, there is no value difference between him and a monkey. No, cancer is not the same thing as gene mutation.

My head is about to explode.
Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:12 pm
WWW
AshlocPosts: 8Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:25 pm

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

AtariMethod wrote:

In order for your theory to work you have to get something better. Humans are better than monkeys in every way. Imperfection is not a result of evolution, nor can it be.

I'm also taking stabs at nothing. I want a logical answer. My point is that mutation doesn't help -- it hinders. You don't get something better from even the most minor DNA changes.


Then he writes

AtariMethod wrote :

Look, you can preach, "minor changes over the millions of years" till you're blue in the face. I perfectly understand what you're relating. However, you're not proving a thing. They can dig up dinosaur bones that are supposedly 65 million years old. In those many millions of years how many evolutionary changes took place before they were dug up? Fact: If evolution was true, then they would be digging up transitional fossils and they ARE NOT. 65 million years is a long time and I don't see any fossils that show a T-Rex turning into a doberman or anything else for that matter. You won't find any either because evolution never happened .



AtariMethod wrote:

Look, people were made with a specific design. They were made to breath air, eat food, digest it, then expel it into their environment. That environment that's made up of plants then uses that waste as food. That waste includes the air we breathe. Evolution cannot put all those variables into working ORDER. It's impossible -- plain and simple.

How can you leave that kind of order up to mere chance? That likely hood of that happening is MILLIONS to one. The odds are mathematically against you. Only a designer can arrange things like we're experiencing. Someone built the Empire State Building, but no-one made you, right? Some amino acids just happened to come together and click one day, by shear accident, and mutated until you have this ultra-complex world we live in that's perfect for all kinds of life. That's moronic. A single cell, with all its microscopic parts is far too complex to happen by chance. Evolution is rubbish.


Next I am going to post one of my replies to him. Now insults have been flying out of him at me in other posts that were not relevant to the conversation and I have now along with others corrected him several times and he simply refused to read any of the posts , links + evidence .
Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:42 pm
Sel'mUser avatarPosts: 2Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:07 pmLocation: Tallinn

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

We've heard it all before. ,¬_,¬
They just keep repeating themselves.
Denial is bliss. >_>

-facedesk-
Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:57 pm
irmerkUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 amLocation: California, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

Haha, the old Empire State Building or any other inorganic matter compared to organic matter. He should take a chemistry or biology course.

There are transitional fossils... We have a lot... The list increases every passing year... What the fuck?

Try linking him to some recent modern day evolutionary mutations seen in children which does not hinder them and afterward tell him to shut the fuck up. If all the evidence points to it not hindering, then the onus is on him to prove his hindering hypothesis. Suit up and get to work, Prof. Idiot.

Again, dinosaurs do not give birth to new species, nor do apes or humans. The whole concept of gradual change over time itself provides a clear understanding on why this idea of his is ludicrous.

If life branched out and worked in synchronization and mutual benefits, then how are current synchronization and mutual benefits impossible? Damn...

The odds for evolution to have worked it's course - as evidence proves it did - are one to one. The odds of an inconceivable and moreover unprovable entity making everything out of thin nothingness is... Unlikely... Dare I say... Impossible...? I mean, if the odds, mathematically, were against evolution, would there not need to be a better alternative?

It is not as if evolution started with breathing, eating, digestion and recycling were the finish line. Everything he sees right now is not the end result. Get. Over. It. It is not, "And finally humans were made!"

Evolution is not chance, it is not accident. Go to school, learn scientific constants and what they result in then try and talk about them as if they do not exist.
Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:40 pm
WWW
AshlocPosts: 8Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:25 pm

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

I provided him with tons of links I am trying to show my side of the debate but it won't fit. So I will post the links I gave him in order.


Quotes addressing his comments on mutation

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).



Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).


Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations and natural selection. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
Williams, Robert. n.d. Examples of beneficial mutations in humans. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:46 pm
AshlocPosts: 8Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:25 pm

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

Links addressing his issues with speciation and Macroevolution


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/%20Macro-evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Observed Speciation
( New species if your unsure what that word means)
Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:54 pm
irmerkUser avatarPosts: 351Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 3:42 amLocation: California, USA Gender: Male

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

Bah, where did your response go?
Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:54 pm
WWW
AshlocPosts: 8Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:25 pm

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

Link addressing his issue with human evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Quotes addressing mutations AGAIN

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.)

They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).

Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).

Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).

A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).

Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).

In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).



There is more to evolution than mutation. A small percentage of mutations are beneficial, and selection can cause the beneficial mutations to persist and the harmful mutations to die off. The combination of mutation and selection can create new useful adaptations.

Sometimes things do get built by accident. Many discoveries started out as accidents that people recognized uses for. Many other designs (accidental or not) have been selected against, that is, discarded. Design itself is an evolutionary process.


Experiments and genetic analysis show that mutations (plus selection) do account for new adaptations (Max 1999).


Max, Edward E. 1999. The evolution of improved fitness by random mutation plus selection
. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/
Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:57 pm
AshlocPosts: 8Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:25 pm

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

Quote about transitional fossils


There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.


Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:


Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.


The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).


A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).


The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 197.


Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.


Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).


Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).


Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).


The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).


Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).


Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 196.

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:


Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).


Dinosaur-bird transitions.


Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).


The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).


Transitions between mesonychids and whales.


Transitions between fish and tetrapods.


Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).


Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).


A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:


The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).


Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.


An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).




Hunt, Kathleen. 1994-1997. Transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Miller, Keith B. n.d. Taxonomy, transitional forms, and the fossil record. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

Patterson, Bob. 2002. Transitional fossil species and modes of speciation. http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm

Thompson, Tim. 1999. On creation science and transitional fossils. http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html
Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:58 pm
AshlocPosts: 8Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:25 pm

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

Here just so you can see the whole unedited thread

http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/165/25597.page

I expose myself to ridicule freely. I know some of my arguements could be stronger but I am not perfect and I know I was personally attacking him after he started assulting me instead of my points.
Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:04 pm
AshlocPosts: 8Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:25 pm

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

However here is a clip of the first part of my reply to him.


Title: Confessions of Creationist ID-iot

AtariMethod Hmm the name alone speaks to your level of understanding of evolution because your understanding is as out dated as the machine you reference in your name.

You are now offically worse then ArcLeader(another creationist who thinks the sun is shrinking) or are him on another account really I don't care.

I am going to address a few of your posts since I have been gone. I will present links to back up the rebuttals I give and I will even delve into the world of scripture with you. Now I see those years of bible study were usefull.

First I want to address your ad hominem against me.

Yes I am dyslexic. As for me not being able to read properly or type. Atleast I read, something you have limited to likely this forum and your dusty tomb of myths that were lifed from babylonain mythology.

Frankly I am not surprised you made it personal since you have yet to back up anything you say with actual proof , articles or links. I have been half expecting a link to Institute for creation research or Answersingenesis to pop up.

Then it occured to me that you have been around long enough to know that I have already and likely could again deconstruct those articles for the shams they are.

All you have left is personal attacks because your position and your arguement have no merit. Your too weak minded to actually debate facts and back up those facts so you have resorted to fallacious arguements.

I will point out how your arguements are fallcies of the best kind as I go forward.
Lets be clear also that your unwillingness to actually address the evidence put before you and to continue to assert that evolution is a lie and that the videos and peer reviewed articles for which I have provided links are all propaganda in noting more then you covering your eyes and plugging your ears.

That is a fallacy called an arguement from ignorance and make no mistake you are ignorant.
That being said it is not a fallacy although it is a personal attack against both your willingness to actaully look at whats presented and address those points in a intellectual manner.

As such the more I have communicated in posts with you the less respect I have for both your premises and your person. You have been presented with evidence that supports our position and make no mistake that fact you don;t understand it * which is evident that you don't* does not mean that it is untrue.

So lets get to the string of turds you left on this thread.

AtariMethod wrote:
I find it interesting Ashloc that your stream of propaganda incorporates works of fiction like, Men in Black and The Matrix. Both of which have a lot in common with evolution -- another work of fiction. As far as your snippets that include false religious organizations you can keep them. The catholic organization is well founded in corruption. If catholic clergy would actually read the Bible they would figure out that it's OK for them to marry and not OK to practice pedophilia.

You have dyslexia, Ashloc. Tell me, is that a result of evolution because your DNA made a minuscule change and now you can't read or type properly, or is it just simple inherited imperfection?


Ashloc wrote
As I am aware no-one in my family has had dyslexia that I am aware of. That being said I don;t keep close tabs on many of my cousins or aunts and uncles. So I am not in a position to say if it was inherited or not.

However I know where your going with this and your desperation is clear. This stlye of ad hominem is more akin to a genetic fallacy where by you are attempting to undermine the source rather then the merit of my arguement.

First you attack my ability to spell, then when I address why I have such an issue you shamelessy attack the reason.

However in a twist of irony your spelling has been on several occations worse then mine. So whats your excuse?

Why don't you pull up your training pants kid and try and have a real debate. I can tell you why you can't, Because your entire position is based off denying evolution without ever having to present proof for your own position. Oh sure you can quote the bible here and there but most people are not going to go there. I will later on.

Your arguement amounts to a ton of crap resting of a bed of eggshells.



Evolutionary hypothesis for dyslexia

This theory posits that reading is an unnatural act, and carried out by humans for an exceedingly brief period in our evolutionary history (Dalby, 1986). It has been less than a hundred years that most western societies promoted reading by the mass population and therefore the forces that shape our behavior have been weak. Many areas of the world still do not have access to reading for the majority of the population. There is no evidence that "pathology" underlies dyslexia but much evidence for cerebral variation or differences. It is these essential differences that are taxed with the artificial task of reading. [25] The native reading hypothesis of dyslexia is another evolutionary theory which argues that because spoken language is naturally learned in the first few years of development, similarly, written language is best learned at the same early age. It suggests that many forms of dyslexia are therefore, to some extent, a result of introducing reading too late in neurodevelopment. This means that the typically late reading of dyslexics might sometimes be the cause of dyslexia, rather than the other way around, and many cases of dyslexia might be prevented by the earlier introduction of reading instruction
Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:08 pm
WhiteDragon103Posts: 4Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:12 pm

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

Ashloc wrote:Needless to say the game was more like intelligent Design for nitwits. I stopped playing the game several months ago. I found it's game play and take on evolution too simple and obviously leaning towards ID.


You stopped playing for that reason? Ouch, that's harsh.

From a game design perspective and a market perspective, it would be hard to make a game out of evolution. It's much more fun and marketable to give player control.
Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:29 am
MikeLibertarianPosts: 5Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 5:18 amLocation: Louisiana, USA

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

I really liked the game for its' Space stage after evolution and technological advancement are completed. However, I would describe the evolutionary process depicted in the game as ID for the apathetic, and in a way supports ID over real evolution. Spore is Lamarkism at best.
Fri May 15, 2009 6:31 am
ebbixxUser avatarPosts: 227Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:33 amLocation: Nüå Jøïzæð

Post Re: Spore evolution Debate

AtariMethod, Young earth creationist and master of stupid wrote:Mutations that occur in human DNA, as small as you are stating here, result not in evolution, but in cell death. A simple biological fact makes your theory impossible. Any non-matching DNA that is produced in any animals living body is DESTROYED by its immune system. That's also a scientific fact. When the body stops ridding itself of those mutated cells and it builds up, its known as CANCER. Sorry, evolution is a lie -- period.



I particularly like this argument.

After all, it also proves that human reproduction (unless the fetus is an exact replica of the mother) is a clear impossibility and a lie invented by... hmmmn, who would have invented something so evil? Opponents of the Stork Theory?
Fri May 15, 2009 5:33 pm
WWW
ebbixxUser avatarPosts: 227Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:33 amLocation: Nüå Jøïzæð

Post Spore Playability WAS Re: Spore evolution Debate

MikeLibertarian wrote:I really liked the game for its' Space stage after evolution and technological advancement are completed.


I agree. Sadly, the 'Space' stage also seems to be the buggiest part of the game. Or it might just be the math errors once you start to have values that exceed the limits of some of the number types coded into such games. I've always had an irrational fondness for hyperbolic functions.
Fri May 15, 2009 5:38 pm
WWW
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1
 [ 16 posts ] 
Return to Debates Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
cron