(cache) God Just Reusing the Same Textures : NoMansSkyTheGame

[–]huntinwabbits 136ポイント137ポイント138ポイント 10時間前 (42子コメント)

[–]Altaeon8 73ポイント74ポイント75ポイント 8時間前 (36子コメント)

[–]Starfire013 80ポイント81ポイント82ポイント 6時間前* (31子コメント)

[–]RALIZEM 14ポイント15ポイント16ポイント 6時間前 (26子コメント)

[–]HectorShadow 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]BA1969 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 4時間前 (21子コメント)

[–]RALIZEM 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4時間前 (20子コメント)

[–]BA1969 -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 4時間前 (19子コメント)

[–]RALIZEM 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 3時間前* (18子コメント)

[–]Rolarin_Taftion 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]BA1969 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Rolarin_Taftion 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]daellat 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]RALIZEM -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

It can be tested and judged the same way eyewitness testimony is in court. And that is exactly what all should do. There is more evidence for the bible than there is for secular ancient writings. Thousands of copies that match eachother and the ones that don't can and are weeded out. Plus the Old Testament was translated approx 300 bc into Greek for Ptolemy's library and was widely distributed throughout the Greek and Roman empire. There has also been books older than that found, such as the "Great Isaiah Scroll" that show what we have in our bibles today is evidence that the originals were faithfully transmitted down through time. Your argument is what is called a logical fallacy. Just because something was documentmented centuries ago and into different languages does not necessarily equate to the text being open to interpretation.

[–]KingMe42 -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 3時間前 (12子コメント)

[–]RALIZEM 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (11子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]Fauxe_Reality 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]glibbertarian 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Professor_Gast 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Goose311 [スコア非表示] 8分前 (0子コメント)

[+]Venom7541 スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]A1Horizon -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ElectricFlesh 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Hofood 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ogtitang 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Darkfire255 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]Schmotz 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Negromancers 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Schmotz 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]jah_92_rastafari 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]dlee_84 95ポイント96ポイント97ポイント 15時間前 (13子コメント)

[–]Heavy-Mettle 11ポイント12ポイント13ポイント 11時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Hofood 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Virtuella 64ポイント65ポイント66ポイント 14時間前 (5子コメント)

[–]Prexmorat 28ポイント29ポイント30ポイント 13時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]rwfarran 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント 11時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]TidusJames 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ynp7 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 11時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]JustBeingAnAsian 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 12時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Alinglapalap 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 11時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Schmotz 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]colonial113 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 7時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Samygabriel 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]OptimusGnarkill 15ポイント16ポイント17ポイント 14時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]MsrSgtShooterPerson 10ポイント11ポイント12ポイント 15時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Starsmore 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 16時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]ToxicSandwich 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 12時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]SpectrumExplorer 10ポイント11ポイント12ポイント 11時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Altr4 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 13時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]AlxCJ 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 16時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]DoctorDeath 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 16時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]TheBonkBoy 9ポイント10ポイント11ポイント 13時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]TitaniumTurtle 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]heyarepost 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 9時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ConspicuousPineapple 8ポイント9ポイント10ポイント 7時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Artie-Choke 12ポイント13ポイント14ポイント 6時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]KingMe42 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]JustNilt 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 16時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]BA1969 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 11時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Human5e 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 8時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]DXRMonstar 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ntgoten 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]poork 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]solardeity 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 15時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]histomiah -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 16時間前 (81子コメント)

[–]nihilist-ego 16ポイント17ポイント18ポイント 15時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]DankestOfDoops 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 11時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]gavilin 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 12時間前 (10子コメント)

[+]histomiah スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 12時間前 (9子コメント)

[–]isaiahreynolds77 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 12時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]jse803 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Shovelbum26 7ポイント8ポイント9ポイント 4時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]jse803 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 28分前 (0子コメント)

[–]Bzttid -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 8時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]gavilin 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 4時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Bzttid 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 29分前 (0子コメント)

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—"

Look, the bible is inherently violent. Read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the story of Job, the wars god fought for his people, and the sheer amount of not only just people but innocent children being murdered by god is absurd. To say "religion is good for the community" shows how ignorant you are to religion itself. I grew up christian and read the bible for years and years and years. I went to a christian school and had to research the bible. Google "violence in the bible" and just read some of the stuff that pops up. Or search "ridiculous bible verses". Plenty of stuff about beating your slaves, disrespecting women, and all other sorts of terrible shit.

Sure, we can say that the people are violent and there is no real god, but what does that accomplish? It still exists, and the people are still violent. Letting it coexist is a problem.

[–]gavilin 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]KingMe42 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]StankySeal -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 12時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Petal_Chatoyance 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 11時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]tomba444 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]BA1969 -4ポイント-3ポイント-2ポイント 11時間前 (26子コメント)

[–]trakeysiblink -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 11時間前 (20子コメント)

[–]BA1969 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 10時間前 (19子コメント)

[–]trakeysiblink -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 10時間前 (14子コメント)

[–]BA1969 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 9時間前* (13子コメント)

Bible yes. I did not grow up religious at all. I just picked up a Bible many years ago to see what it was all about. Read the whole thing, didn't understand most of it at the time. But what struck me that a book, that is really a collection of 66 books and letters written over a time span of thousands of years can be so coherent and each book confirming and complimenting the next one. Yes, of course, I do realize men wrote these books and letters, but if you really read and study them, you see that a higher power has inspired and directed them.

We all look at a car and no one ever doubts it had a designer. We would call anyone claiming that it would be possible for a car to evolve out of nothing over millions of years an idiot, declare him insane and lock him up. Same goes for a painting, they just don't happen, we all know that. You just don't put 8 bottles of closed paint somewhere and wait for some years for a painting of a beautiful landscape to appear. It's not going to happen, someone needs to pick up a brush and start painting.

Yet.... we look at live, which is infinitely more complex then even the most advanced car or a largest and most detailed painting and say it came from non organic matter and it just happened over time. Sorry, to say so, but you must have a lot of faith to believe that. We all know cars have designers, paintings have painters, buildings have architects, yet life in all it's complexity and beauty cannot have a intelligent designer, or a artistic painter or a master architect?

How about laws and rules? We all know they don't just happen. Why in the world are we even moral beings? Does that just come about. How about the laws that the universe in ruled by to prevent it turning into chaos? They don't just happen over time. Someone must set bounds, rules, laws and regulations for it all to function in cohesion. These laws are way to complex to just happen by chance. Most of us don't even understand them and we haven't even figured all of it out, but we do say these just came about? Impossible, any reasonable thinking person knows that is not possible. With such complex laws there must be a law giver somewhere.

We think it's unmoral to kill someone else. But if we came from nothing, why would we even think that at all? How can we even be moral beings if someone hasn't thought us these morals? The animals we came from don't have these morals and values humans have. We all know that things decay over time and not improve. So, instead of having morals and values, we should have decayed and be worse then them. Yet we are not, we are moral being that have values (well, most of us have), because we have been created by a God with morals and values, who deems us valuable and precious.

Sorry, but I rather put my trust in God then the believe some theory that doesn't even make sense (and need lies and arranged fabrications to convince me it's true, but that's another discussions)

Sorry for the long read :)

[–]bumps- 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 6時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Phillycj268 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]BA1969 -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]kvitvarg 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 6時間前* (5子コメント)

The watchmaker analogy you used (but with a car) is an incredibly flawed and crude/derivative argument which is a product of people who aren't able to think outside of the box of their human perspective and don't seem to be able to tackle existential philosophy.

In recent years the watchmaker analogy has evolved to include the notion of “irreducible complexity,” a term coined by the prominent Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe. So now instead of having the mere presence of a watch (Behe is particularly fond of using a mousetrap as an example) imply a watchmaker, we are to conclude that the watch is far too complicated to have been created by natural processes, and that therefore the watch must have been designed by an intelligent agent. Thus life, like the watch, is too complicated to have arisen by natural causes.

But let’s think about this for a moment. If you look at a watch lying on the ground and think to yourself, “Oh, this must be designed,” what are you comparing the watch to in order to make that judgment? Would you compare it to the ground, the trees, the grass, the animals, or the sky perhaps? If the watch looks designed compared to its surroundings, the only logical conclusion we could draw is that its surroundings are not designed. If we were unable to differentiate the watch from its natural surroundings, then we would deem it to be a natural object no different from a rock or a tree.

If we say that life is designed, again, with what are we making the comparison? All that is non-life? OK, but then we would still have to say that all non-life is not designed. But suppose we say that the entire universe is designed. Well, we don’t have another universe to compare ours to, and as Hume points out, that’s exactly the problem. We only have experience with one universe, and unless we have the opportunity to examine other universes (if they exist, of course), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that our universe is designed, nor do we have any reason to believe it is in the first place.

So without even having to rely on complex and dense scientific arguments to refute the watchmaker analogy, we can easily see that the argument serves to refute itself.

The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future purpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.

I don't understand when people tout the 'balance' and 'order' of the universe and the natural world because when you look beyond our baser human perspective it's not balanced or orderly at all, it's a constant jumble of physics and fractalesque chaos theory. It looks like a well designed system when a bee pollinates a flower because many of us have a narrow world view constrained to the simple logic an un-stimulated ape brain can come up with when its an incomprehensibly complex snapshot in space-time of physics doing its thing. Things that can exist do exist, things that cant exist dont exist and things that can perpetuate their existence do so until they can't anymore... even the foundations of physics and our 'laws' of thermodynamics are temporary constructs which simply exist and will most likely fizzle away or be bent into something else some day... hell, even the current seemingly infallible laws of physics break down at high enough temperatures.

[–]BA1969 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5時間前 (4子コメント)

Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind.

So in other words, your life serves no purpose at all. The theory by Darwin still doesn't explain the fundamental question in life.... where does it all come from. Sure, people who believe in God are often accused of blindness, but I wonder how blind one must be that all the beauty in life comes from a blind unconscious, automatic process. You know that if you move our earth a meter (or even less) from it's orbit either way, life would pretty much cease to exist. To believe that came about by a blind unconscious, automatic process is mere blindness. Someone has put that in place, it's to delicate and the chance of that happening by chance or a blind unconscious, automatic process is less then 1 in 18 quintillion :)

[–]kvitvarg 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間前 (3子コメント)

Hahahha you can DEFINITELY move the earths orbit 1 meter either way, it's just another false factoid made up by people who want life on Earth to seem a lot more organised than it is. Our orbit varies by 5 MILLION kilometres through the year (it's actually closest to the sun during winter which is funny) and it could still vary a lot more wildly than that and life would still be fine. If the temperatures of earth doubled or tripled life as a phenomenon would adapt/continue to exist, it just wouldn't be as we know it. Again it's a human perspective thing thinking what we observe around us that 'works' as well as it does (what we and life have adapted to) is an ideal system.

The chances of being alive and able to talk about our origins do seem very slim, at least as individuals, but we have no idea how common life is throughout the universe... It's very sparse but very very large, just in the observable universe we can see trillions of stars, most of which probably have several planets orbiting around of varying size and composition. Our galaxy alone has hundreds of thousands of planets that are a similar size and temperature to ours and even the the only reason they're considered eligible for life is because we know for a fact that is a combination that enables life (because we can look at our own planet) but other life forms could occur in completely different kinds of environments.

Even Mars has evidence of flowing water and perhaps even life, some people have suggested that maybe the origin of life on Earth came from Mars debris or a comet or suchlike.

It's just romanticising to think of earth as a precious gem which has an amazing balanced system against all odds and there's no sound logic to it at all because you have no comparison... It's only a logical guess to say that life probably came from gradually more complex amino acids forming cells and so on... It's a guess yes but based on evidence and what our greatest minds can test and project and study and is subject to change, unlike 'big man in the sky made the universe for lols'

How delicate the ecosystem is and how prone it is to destruction along with all the extinctions, evolution, and how short a time has passed since life first came to exist is just a testament to the chaotic randomness, not graceful design.

[–]BA1969 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前 (2子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]ethan919 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 8時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Bzttid 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 8時間前 (2子コメント)

You think the bible is a moral compass? That's scary; the bible is one of the most sexist, homophobic, proslavery, violent, rape condoning/rape victim blaming book ever. Some example portions of the bible (I'm sure you're familiar with these since you read the whole thing):

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak... And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home

If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

And Jesus condones all this saying: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven

You would think that an all knowing god who can create complex life would be a lot better at creating a peaceful, successful society.

[–]BA1969 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 7時間前 (1子コメント)

Yes, true the Bible says that, but it's only part of the story and you're only quoting bits and pieces. For a Jew, who refuses to accept Jesus as the Messiah, the full law will be still applicable, the old covenant will remain. If you would adhere to it then you have a peaceful, successful society. But... all of this points to something else though.

There is a different side of the story, Jesus came to establish a new covenant. In it there is no difference between a Jew, a heathen (non Jew), slave, free man, man or woman. A new covenant not set in stone, as the old one was, but written on our hearts. A new kingdom rules by joy, peace, love, forgiveness and so on. The old is covenant is for me to learn from, the new is to life from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSUKIhjevo

By the way, thanks for posting your lengthy reply, I do enjoy a good discussion about these matters to learn from. In the end, all of us have to make up our own paths in life and I do respect that, even if I do not agree with the path some take in life. We're all responsible and accountable for our own lives, but if the opportunity arises, I will share my views with others. I do hope people can respect that, just as I respect them sharing their views on matters.

So, as a token of respect and appreciation, please do accept my up vote for your post :)

[–]Bzttid 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 36分前 (0子コメント)

Hm, from the looks of it Jesus is saying that the old law is plenty applicable still. And the entire bible is contextual snippets, whether it be a letter written to a church or establishing law. It is always taught out of at the very meaning of it, so claiming "oh, that's out of context!" Is entirely invalid. The bible says that stuff and is still relevant. If it wasn't relevant cut out the old testament and only read the new.

Look, I'm not saying that all Christians are inherently bad, but you have to understand that Christianity inherently goes against some people at their very core. I grew up christian. For the longest time religion suppressed my identity and I went into a dark depression because of it. I'm transgender, and the bible specifically says that I'm sinning. I understand why you're calmly agreeing with it and being intensely "holier than thou"- its easy. You, likely, align with the religion entirely. But, take a moment and put yourself in my shoes. You're stuck in a body that you feel like you don't belong in for your entire life. Happiness is considered a sin by a very large group of people that threatens you with violence and hatred. You could see how its a bit tough to be equally as calm and how I'm pissed at Christianity. Happiness = hell, Christianity = deep, dark depression. Its a lose/lose for me in a Christians eyes.

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

The big problem with the bible and the "everyone believe what they want" thing you're putting fourth is that it simply is not true. The bible does not condone that. Jesus says million times that "he is the way" and god himself considers idolatry a major sin.

And on top of all this there's massive moral conflicts with god himself. Sodom and Gomorrah was entirely destroyed, right? What about the children there? What about the babies? God just killed a shitload of kids and has no issue with it. What's up with that?

Also, god has ultimate power, right? But he's also ultimately loving and just. So, let's say you had a gun. Several people, some including your family, were standing at gunpoint. The shooter doesn't look at you and is about to start shooting them. You have a chance to save them by shooting the guy. You don't. Are you immoral? The point I'm trying to get at is this: why doesn't god stop natural disasters? Its not a matter of "free will" because no one is instigating it. Why does god allow sickness and disease and venomous or aggressive animals to exist? If sin is plaguing our world and god has the responsibility to take care of it. Inaction is equally morally responsible as action. If you fail to stop evil when you can you are evil.

What about the story of Job? Satan wagers a bet with god based on a human life (job is also a flawless follower) and god let's Satan torture him for the sake of a bet. His wife, children, livestock, and servants are killed and his life is destroyed. All this god is letting happen.

So when do we stop questioning gods morality? Plenty of people get to this point in the argument and say "well, god is god so he knows better", and that's the point where they fail entirely to argue rationally.

Also, why does the complexity of our universe point to the christian god? There's no writing on the wall saying which god did it, and every god has a creation story, so even of the complexity of creation did somehow point to a god why would it be a christian one?

On top of that, complexity proves nothing. The idea that god created everything is literally unprovable, while evolution, while still hard to prove, is leaaaps and bounds beyond just "creation". Complexity means nothing but a long process, and life has been around for that long process.

God is inherently violent and immoral, wagers on peoples lives, destroys cities, and sits and watches the world burn.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

[–]KingMe42 -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 2時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]BA1969 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]KingMe42 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]BA1969 [スコア非表示] 9分前 (0子コメント)

[–]jse803 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 6時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]PolySoup -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 5時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]BA1969 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 5時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]PolySoup -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 5時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]BA1969 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 4時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]trakeysiblink -5ポイント-4ポイント-3ポイント 11時間前 (36子コメント)

[–]BA1969 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 7時間前 (35子コメント)

[–]jse803 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 6時間前 (10子コメント)

[–]BA1969 -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 5時間前 (9子コメント)

[–]KingMe42 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]tomba444 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5時間前 (6子コメント)

[–]BA1969 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5時間前 (5子コメント)

[–]tomba444 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]BA1969 -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 4時間前 (3子コメント)

Because it gives meaning and purpose to life and answers quite some questions for me. I can't except that I'm just a meaningless insignificant result of a random fluke (I know that's putting it a bit blunt). I live by chance and I die by chance and that's it? How meaningless and depressing.

You cannot just shut out religion no matter how much you would like to do it. There is an inner call in our souls, inner man, heart or whatever you call it for purpose, for more beyond then what we can see. For thousands of years we just have accepted God as being there. The last couple of 100 years man has called himself enlightened and decided there is no God and life must come from something else. Just look at society these days.... crime is rampant, suicide is getting worse and worse, millions are depressed and so on. People lost direction and meaning in life. While people have accepted the Evolution Theory for some decades, you know see the opposite happening. People have become empty and are know looking for spiritual meaning in life again. Sure, not God perhaps, but some meaning. That alone shows me that we are not just here and life came from nothing. I we came from nothing we don't have the desire to seek the spiritual, since that would not exist at all. Fact is that the spiritual exists and we have a longing for it. That in itself is enough for me to know there is a God who made life.

[–]tomba444 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 4時間前 (2子コメント)

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]jse803 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 29分前 (0子コメント)

[–]kvitvarg 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 6時間前 (14子コメント)

[–]BA1969 -2ポイント-1ポイント0ポイント 5時間前 (13子コメント)

[–]kvitvarg 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]BA1969 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]kvitvarg 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 2時間前* (0子コメント)

[–]tomba444 -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 5時間前 (9子コメント)

[–]Jarl_Hrafn 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 4時間前* (0子コメント)

[–]BA1969 -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 4時間前 (7子コメント)

Not twisting anything, just showing it didn't happen spontaneously.

Let me put it to you another way. On the earth we have the perfection conditions for Evolution in it's primordial state to happen. All the conditions are there. Some of the rocks here on earth are claimed to be millions of years. With all the perfect conditions, should we not still see Evolution it's primordial state in action? Yes, we should. Yes, we don't. We can only see it under perfect lab conditions (at least that's what they claim) and those conditions are instigated by design. They just don't happen, they are made to happen. That's not twisting, those are the facts. I know, the facts will not suit you too well, I understand that. Fact is design is needed to make it happen, an intelligent being is needed to make it happen. That is a fact, ignore it if you like, fine with me.

[–]Shovelbum26 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 4時間前* (5子コメント)

I'm sympathetic to your cause here because this argument was started by atheists being jerks, but when you say it is a fact that design is needed for life to spontaneously begin you're just wrong. It is not a fact.

You are right that the steps of the spontaneous generation of life have never been reproduced. We've been able to observe organic molecules that are the building blocks of life spontaneously forming and beginning reproducing (not life yet, but getting close) but not what anyone would reasonably call "life" (though that itself is a nebulous term. Is a virus alive?).

However, your argument that we should see new life spontaneously starting is all around us is specious. The problem is that life already exists and is established here. So any "new" life that starts is going to get crowded out by more well established organisms. What our experiments have shown is that those first organic molecules are fragile and easily disrupted. On a primordial earth with nothing "stirring the pot" so to speak they had a chance to take hold and continue to grow in complexity. Here with life all around they wouldn't stand a chance any more. They'd be broken down and taken apart by some bacteria or another for food.

Second, molecular biology tells us that a very specific set of circumstances are needed for the first organic molecules to spontaneously form. These conditions existed on primordial earth, but ironically, the existence of life here has ensured that those conditions are gone and wont' come back. Life has produced things like a huge abundance of Oxygen and basically totally changed the entire chemistry of our land, water and air. Life as we know it can no longer spontaneously form because life itself has made the environment inhospitable to the formation of new life.

The last problem, and this goes back to your argument that we haven't successfully observed new life forming in experiments is this: not enough time has passed. The first life arose on Earth after 800,000,000 years. That's a mind-mindbogglingly long amount of time. In contrast, we've being trying to experimentally reproduce life for about 75 years.

800 million years for life to spontaneously form. So we know that it's an astonishingly rare and improbable thing to happen. It took a long time for things to happen just right for life to form. It's no wonder we haven't seen it happen in experiments yet!

TL;DR: Sorry people picked a fight with you. I support your right to believe whatever you want, but you are a bit wrong on your science.

[–]BA1969 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 4時間前 (4子コメント)

That's OK, picking a fight is expected with such a topic. I just feel like both sides of the story should be told. At schools and faculties we mainly hear about Evolution Theory without other views being presented or allowed to be taught. That is not how schools should operate, they should allow people to make up their own minds without presenting on thing is the absolute truth.... at least not in matters like this.

I understand the about the time involved, though it brings us right back to the core issue. I get accused that we cannot see God, yet the Evolutionist needs so much time that no one can ever verify what he claims. In other words.... both rely on faith, not science. We don't know that life starting is an astonishingly rare and improbable thing to happen, it's not a fact, it's something that is assumed. The problem is though that even today we still should be able to observe this happening. We at some point in our lives should see, let's say the fish decide to climb out of the water and grow legs (putting it a bit crude, I know, but you get the point).

Here's one though for you. Since for life to spontaneously form you need lot's of time and it's an astonishingly rare and improbable thing to happen..... how much do you think the odds are that it happened twice? Let me explain. At some point in evolution, the next step that always took ages to happen must have happened twice in roughly the same area, otherwise life would die out right away. You always need a male and female of the species to form in the same vicinity otherwise life is over in no time. We're now talking later stages of evolution. This had to happen quite a few times, actually looking at the species quite a lot. Yes, it would be such a huge coincident to happen that the odds of it happening at the same time and at the same place twice is immense. If, as Evolution states this is directed by a blind unconscious automated process, life would pretty soon die out in it's early stages. Yet here we are on a planet with millions of species all depending on male and female to survive, yet came about by some random fluke (putting it bluntly again)?

Sorry, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and form 2 of each kind, male and female, sounds like a way better recipe for survival then the alternative :)

[–]Shovelbum26 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

Ha, well I do have counterpoints to what you raised, but basically let me just say that it comes down to quite a lot of misunderstanding about evolutionary science. Rather than delve into the details here, just know that there are answers to the questions you're asking, and very good ones. (For instance, we have directly observed evolution, on both the micro and macro levels. We have observed the genesis of new species in the wild, and the development of new adaptations within species.)

I respect that you're a skeptic, honestly I think science needs skeptics as much as it needs scientists, checking in to keep us honest. :)

If you want I'd be very, very happy to direct you to some amazing books about evolutionary theory that are extremely accessible to the lay-person. I think you'd find a lot of interesting information in there and, if nothing else, you could argue more in depth with evolutionary biologists. :)

Just let me know, I'd be happy to PM you a few titles that I think you'd enjoy.

[–]Jarl_Hrafn 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 3時間前 (2子コメント)

Actually, evolution CAN be demonstrated through careful examination of the fossil record:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

"Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related."

"In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS (National Academy of Sciences) defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling."

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]KingMe42 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Oz70NYC 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 6時間前 (8子コメント)

Except for the fact that there is evidence. It's called Carbon Dating. Through molecular composition a whooooooooooooooole bunch of things can be proven. The only thing religion has proven is that humans have a fallible need to believe there's a higher power directly tied to the stupid decision we've made in our history of existence. It's a cop-out. A means for empires to invade lands and force their beliefs upon other peoples who believe in their own gods.

Let's say a dude walks into a heavy metal concert and sprays it down with an Assault Rifle, killing 100 people. He's taken alive and brought to justice. His plea: "God said those men and women need to die. He used me as his vessel to bring judgement upon them." By your logic, his plea should be acknowledge. He just killed 100 people. 100 lives gone...just like that. Because a man claims a diety who has yet to be proven even exists "told" him to kill all of those people.

I already know you're likely to spin some sort of convoluted story on why this guy should be pardoned. "God works in mysterious ways" is the stupid justification used. Tell that to the 100 families who have to deal with the loss of a brother, sister, son, daughter, niece, nephew, etc. Religion is nothing more then ANOTHER device created by those in power at the time to subjugate and control the lesser minds they ruled over. And it's the greatest leash ever made...because thousands of years later there are people still following it like good little subject. It's slavery in it's original, most purest form.

[–]BA1969 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 5時間前 (7子コメント)

[–]Shovelbum26 4ポイント5ポイント6ポイント 4時間前 (5子コメント)

[–]BA1969 -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 4時間前 (4子コメント)

Thanks, I appreciate the honestly :)

Can I ask you an honest question as well? Dating is problematic, I know that, because I believe things just simply aren't that old, but that's not the point. Now that dating things become so complex, beyond what most of us can comprehend and we need very specialized methods to do it, don't you think the ones dating can just tamper with the data to get the wanted results?

It is known that much of the early proof (that is still presented as facts in school text books) wasn't proof at all, much of it was 'made' to fit. Now that proving the Evolution Theory with tangible things is hard to do, we move into more specialized (and for the public harder to understand) areas to find proof. What warrants us that the proof that is found now isn't tampered with as well?

I'm not against the Evolution Theory being taught, I'm not that narrow minded that my world view should be the only presented, that is just not realistic. What worries me is that with many scientist and educators there is no room for the others sides, creationism and intelligent design (not to be seen as one and the same) or even other more less known views. Many faculties and school force only one view on their students, without allowing them to learn the others as well. They should be unbiased, teaching people to think for themselves, you they only expose them to one view. I find that worrying.

[–]Shovelbum26 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 4時間前 (3子コメント)

don't you think the ones dating can just tamper with the data to get the wanted results?

An interesting question. I've never been asked that before. The answer is that the people doing the testing do not know the "wanted result", nor even does the researcher most of the time.

Radiometric dating is done at labs with specialized equipment. I'd say something on the order of 95% of all archaeology is done somewhere without their "own" radiometric dating lab, so the samples are packaged and sent off with a request for dating. Even a university with it's own lab, the testing is done by a lab tech not the archaeologist/paleontologist, both because they lack the specialty to do the test and to prevent bias in the testing. The date comes back from the lab and you get your date. The person doing the testing does not have any knowledge of the research or the specimen, so there is no opportunity (or motive) to skew the results.

You're also forgetting about peer review. If an archaeologist comes out with an amazing claim on a date, it gets a lot of scrutiny. Samples are retested at other labs. Results have to be verifiable to be meaningful in science!

Most of the problems with radiometric dating come with sample collection and contamination. If a sample gets contaminated on collection, or even in-situ (in the ground) you get a bad date. For instance you're testing the charcoal in an ancient hearth, but 600 years ago and a tree root grew into it and the tree burned so the root charcoal is mixed with the hearth charcoal. You're date is going to be some kind of average there. There are other things that can skew the dates on radiocarbon dating as well, and then there are just the times that the provenience is unclear. What you thought was a firepit was actually just a burned stump, or the cookfire of a hunter that used the site 5,000 years after the prehistoric occupation.

Also, the idea of a "desired" outcome for the dating is just off. You have a hypothesis to test, but a negative result is usually at least as interesting as a positive result. In other words, there isn't any stigma to being wrong. If you get a date back that is wildly inconsistent with your hypothesis, that's not a failure, it's an interesting new problem to explore.

So yeah, there are problems, but "finger on the scale" isn't one of them.

As for creationism/intelligent design being taught in school, I'm not in favor of that because of the separation of church and state. Also, the supernatural is, by definition, unverifiable.

It goes back to the point I made that something has to be verifiable to be meaningful in science. You have to be able to reproduce your work. This is the entire basis of science: observe, predict, reproduce. The assumption is that the world works on a set of laws, that don't change. However, the supernatural doesn't have to follow these rules. God can, theoretically, make gravity stop working if he wants. He is inherently un-understandable and un-predictable (in the sense that he is not bound by any physical laws that we can observe and predict). This means any "study" of God is meaningless. You have to either simply believe he exists or not. There is no meaningful way to prove it and there cannot ever be.

Since creationism is inherently supernatural, and thus the realm of belief, I'm against it being included in public school curriculum in any context other than sociology (the study of cultures). Presenting it in a science format is not an accurate representation of science.

[–]BA1969 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 3時間前 (2子コメント)

Thanks for the explanation. One thing sticks to my mind now.... would a scientist if he or she would find something that totally goes against (or even undermines) the predominant Evolution Theory findings, even publish it? Would he or she be brave enough to do that? I have a friend (he was not a believer at that time) who did that. He used to be a well respected scientist, even professor at a major university. He studies ear stones of fish and found some things years ago that we not fitting the common theories at all. He published it and even though no could refute his findings, he lost his job and is not allowed to teach anymore. I wonder how many scientists are in the same position.

This is the entire basis of science: observe, predict, reproduce.

Agreed, but if we're honest don't we have the same problem with the Evolution Theory. It still is a theory, we cannot observe it, it's hard to predict and sure cannot reproduce it. Doesn't that make it a religion by nature as well. People assume it's true, yet, because it happened I don't know how many millions of years ago (that tends to change over time) we cannot prove it. Same argument for not teaching it in schools goes the both ways in my opinion.

Thanks again though for your insight!

[–]Shovelbum26 3ポイント4ポイント5ポイント 3時間前 (1子コメント)

would a scientist if he or she would find something that totally goes against (or even undermines) the predominant Evolution Theory findings, even publish it?

Ha, yeah that's an interesting question. The answer is that yes, things like that do get published, but there is usually a lot of blowback.

One example that comes to mind is a guy named James Adavasio. He's an archaeologist at Mercyhurst in Pennsylvania. He was an absolute unknown guy probably 15 years ago, just an archaeologist working at a pretty small school in a small program. Nothing special. One of tens of thousands of archaeologists in the US working, published papers here and there. Then he found a called Meadowcroft Rock Shelter. He was doing excavations, looking into the history of the settlement there, basically trying to figure out how old it was. He went down through the levels until he got to what was, at the time, considered the first human culture in North America. These were supposed to be the people who crossed over the Siberian land bridge to colonize North America.

Adavasio found that, and then kept digging (this is actually what everyone does, the rule is you keep digging until you stop finding artifacts). Of course he expected that to be the oldest evidence of human occupation, but instead he kept finding artifacts, things that didn't look like anything anyone had ever found before.

He published the findings and it basically said that the last 100 years of archaeological theory in America was wrong. There was a culture older than what we thought was the oldest. His research was vigorously questioned by lots of "old guard" archaeologists but his data was pretty solid.

Basically the result is the question isn't answered still, but if nothing else Adavasio is a name everyone in archaeology knows (in North America at least). He's got his choice of grants and research programs, Mercyhurst is now a premiere Archaeology program because students want to come study with Adavasio.

TL;DR: Yeah, you find something spectacular that challenges generations of research you're going to get put through the wringer, but if your data are solid and you did your work well it's the chance of a lifetime. It's what every scientist dreams of, the chance to make a breakthrough and go down in history.

このスレッドの続きを見る

[–]Oz70NYC 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 1時間前 (0子コメント)

Human beings as we exist now have only been in existence 200,000 years, but our ancestors have existed for 6 million years. Think about that for a second. The Earth is 6.5 billion years old. Human life in it's earliest form, as our earliest ancestors as is proven by science resembled rodents...have existed only 6 million. If you quantify that in the span of an hour, we've existed a whole second of of 60 minutes. Less then that even. And there's proof abound of this. But the proof that "God" in whatever manifestation you think of him exists in a book written by men.

Furthermore, Carbon dating has located the very point on the planet the meteor struck that ended the Cretaceous period...which is in Mexico. Carbon dating has discovered minerals that have existed on Earth before it was even remotely what you could call a planet. Bottom line, science proves a multitude of facets in human existence and history. Ontogeny, phylogeny, anthropology, molecular biology, genetics, fossil record...I can go on. Religion proves not a single one. By the bible's account Adam was created from dust into a fully formed human male. Soooooooooooo...which am I supposed to believe? A book written before science even existed, or science that has time after time debunked and disproved almost EVERY theory of which the bible has stated about humanity?

But you can feel free to believe what you want. I believe in facts back by scientific evidence. Not a book written by rulers thousands of years in their graves.

[–]Virtical 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 15時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]NoMansWeenis 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 14時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]nakada1996 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 11時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]LSunday 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 8時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]WookieFanboi[🍰] 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]TheWhaleOfSpace 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 10時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Seevenup 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 10時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]tekknej 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 7時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Kirkibost 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 6時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]dardan75 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Petricored 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Pitran 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 5時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]monsterfurby 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]jugalator 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前* (0子コメント)

Yeah, this is what I said in another thread here. I was met with the valid reply that we have a pretty poor sample size and that's true. However, excepting life forms affecting the landscape with varying sorts of vegetation and fungi or whatever else may grow over it, I don't think this is that far from the truth except that we're probably missing ice worlds here. Which is kind of silly because we have those in our solar system.

We do only have natural processes, a periodic table, and energized systems from e.g. solar or geothermal activity to work with, after all. Three states of matter, excepting non-naturally occuring forms. Solid matter can form mountains, be big, small, or form sand or become muddy when wet. Liquid forms can form rivers, lakes, ponds, and fall. Gases can be translucent or not. Winds can happen or not. Our own very active planet has given us a very rich view of landscapes that can form, probably richer than on many other single worlds; volcanos, hot springs, mountain peaks and valleys, a lot of it is here.

As far in the distance we have peered, we haven't found any signatures of much else, especially not on worlds you can walk on. Something that dramatically restricts variety on its own and instantly filters out things like exotic matter within neutron stars, magnetic environments from magnetars, etc.

Sure, the game could have crazy variety in the worlds but I think then that would be more like a fantasy than something based in reality at least.

[–]ahumanwolverine 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Fermin85 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Whitenoise71 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]vicwiz007 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Chicken_Dump_Ling 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]SWJS1 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 12分前 (0子コメント)

[–]PepeSylvia11 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 2時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]SWJS1 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 12分前 (0子コメント)

[–]Congzilla 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 16時間前* (0子コメント)

[+]r_k_ologist スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 16時間前 (4子コメント)

[–]SlamdunkCultist 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 16時間前 (2子コメント)

[+]histomiah スコアが基準値未満のコメント-9ポイント-8ポイント-7ポイント 16時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]AlxCJ 5ポイント6ポイント7ポイント 16時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]LoneRanger9 -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 16時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]ProfessorK76 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 3時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Waldsman -5ポイント-4ポイント-3ポイント 16時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Dudemannerisms -3ポイント-2ポイント-1ポイント 13時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]Kaeru-ryu 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 13時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]Dudemannerisms 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 13時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Infinitypixels 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 8時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]CowTippinSloth -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 7時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]MitchConn3r[S] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-13ポイント-12ポイント-11ポイント 16時間前 (0子コメント)

[–]Bonbonjoe -1ポイント0ポイント1ポイント 13時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]Sonic_The_Badger スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 9時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]SWJS1 [スコア非表示] 5分前 (0子コメント)

[+][deleted] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-26ポイント-25ポイント-24ポイント 16時間前 (3子コメント)

[–]AlxCJ 6ポイント7ポイント8ポイント 16時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]avi6274 1ポイント2ポイント3ポイント 9時間前 (0子コメント)

[+][deleted] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-11ポイント-10ポイント-9ポイント 15時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]Toucanic スコアが基準値未満のコメント-6ポイント-5ポイント-4ポイント 7時間前 (0子コメント)

[+]0neeyewilly スコアが基準値未満のコメント-7ポイント-6ポイント-5ポイント 15時間前 (1子コメント)

[–]Digiten 0ポイント1ポイント2ポイント 57分前 (0子コメント)

[+][deleted] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-25ポイント-24ポイント-23ポイント 16時間前 (2子コメント)

[–]succubusfutjab 2ポイント3ポイント4ポイント 16時間前 (1子コメント)

[+][deleted] スコアが基準値未満のコメント-11ポイント-10ポイント-9ポイント 16時間前 (0子コメント)

NoMansSkyTheGame

69,000 Explorers! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Welcome ---> | Rules | Information Archive | Information Repository | Message the Mods

No Man's Sky TL;DR

調停者