1 minute ago, Boba Rick said:

That's humorously ironic because the exact same thing can be said about the religion of Darwinism (except there are plenty of glaring scientific problems with it).

the what now?

14 minutes ago, Boba Rick said:

That's humorously ironic because the exact same thing can be said about the religion of Darwinism (except there are plenty of glaring scientific problems with it).

Wow. Just wow.

Just narrowly taking falsifiability, for instance, there are plenty of ways evolution via Darwinian natural selection could be falsified. For instance, if we found a bunch of primate fossils nestled within the 3.5-4.5 billion year old sediment layers alongside ultra primitive lifeforms like stromatolites, you can bet every evolutionists would be questioning everything about the theory and trying to make sense of those new observations. Because those observations would be completely incompatible with a Darwinian taxonomy of graduated change across time as a result of inheritance, variation, and selection (among other influences, like drift or evo-devo constraints).

But it need not even be anything so bold and shocking...

Heck, if we found a bunch of six-legged (or seven-legged, or eight-legged) hoofed mammals in the deep jungle, evolutionists would be pretty perplexed and looking hard into that species. But, wouldn't you know, every single documented amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal has four or less limbs (eg snakes have the vestigial bone structures that used to correlate to ancestral limbs, while whales and dolphins have the vestigial skeletal remnants where their hind legs were slowly lost across the course of their ancestry). And you know why we don't find any six-legged horses or any eight-legged skinks? Because the shared common ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals had... you guessed it, four limbs.



So what sorts of stuff would falsify Darwinian evolution? All sorts of stuff . Four billion-year-old human fossils. A species of nine-legged horse found, or **** a hippo giving birth to an ostrich.

What sort of observation would falsify the Creationsit view that God created the lifeforms we observe on this planet? What observation would be incompatible with a divine creator? Nothing. Which is (one of several reasons) why it's not a scientific explanation.

8 minutes ago, SOTL said:

More damning is the number of things it didn't predict until he retrospectively changed the maths to give the desired outcome.

That's how descriptive models work though. Do you think it's damning for models about climate change, evolution, or, well, any other model that had their math changed to fit reality better?

@MajorJuggler Have you considered applying MathWing to Fantasy Sports leagues or the stock market? I suspect those would be far more profitable.

Then again...I haven’t done the math! ?

Just now, Phelan Boots said:

@MajorJuggler Have you considered applying MathWing to Fantasy Sports leagues or the stock market? I suspect those would be far more profitable.

And you are probably not the first one to think of something like that

2 hours ago, Skargoth said:

I’ll never forget Juggler’s reaction to Contracted Scout point cost reveal. He was so right from the very beginning FFG should’ve hired him to consult two years ago.

He was also self admittedly wrong about many things. (Fair ship rebels for instance).

6 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

Wow. Just wow.

Just narrowly taking falsifiability, for instance, there are plenty of ways evolution via Darwinian natural selection could be falsified. For instance, if we found a bunch of primate fossils in nestled within the 3.5-4.5 billion year old sediment layers alongside stromatolites. Because those observations would be completely incompatible with a Darwinian taxonomy of graduated change across time.

But if need not be anything so bold. Heck, if we found a bunch of six-legged (or seven-legged, or eight-legged) hoofed mammals in the jungle, most evolutionists would be pretty perplexed and looking hard into that species. But, wouldn't you know, every single documented amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal has four or less limbs (eg snakes have the vestigial bone structures that used to correlate to ancestral limbs, while whales and dolphins have the vestigial skeletal remnants where their hind legs were slowly lost across the course of their ancestry). And you know why we don't find any six-legged horses or any eight-legged skinks? Because the shared common ancestor of all amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals had... you guessed it, four limbs.

Wow, you actually took the time to write all that.

I'm here to talk about X-Wing, not argue with randos on the internet.

24 minutes ago, Boba Rick said:

That's humorously ironic because the exact same thing can be said about the religion of Darwinism (except there are plenty of glaring scientific problems with it).

2 minutes ago, Icelom said:

He was also self admittedly wrong about many things. (Fair ship rebels for instance).

Was he? About FSR1 maybe?

1 minute ago, Boba Rick said:

Wow, you actually took the time to write all that.

I'm here to talk about X-Wing, not argue with randos on the internet.

It's anyway only a discussion americans would have (or bring up like you did). Darwinian evolution is so thoroughly supported by an incredible mountain of evidence that it's not even funny to start.

1 minute ago, Boba Rick said:

Wow, you actually took the time to write all that.

I'm here to talk about X-Wing, not argue with randos on the internet.

He said, trollishly, after having posted argumentative points not at all about X-Wing.


It's six minutes of my hobby-time I was gonna spend on the forums anyways. That's a small price to pay to help those who might be curious about something. Feel free to read it and reflect. Or feel free to stubbornly ignore it and bask in your own safely isolated world-view. Either way, your dismissive attitude is not going to affect my day and I hope you have a great day yourself!

1 minute ago, GreenDragoon said:

Was he? About FSR1 maybe?

Yes he literally explains that his formulas missed it and he went back and tweaked the formulas to match reality.

His math is not perfect and people should stop treating it that way. Add to the fact the man has one of the largest egos I have ever seen and the whole matgwing just starts anoying me.

6 minutes ago, Boba Rick said:

Wow, you actually took the time to write all that.

I'm here to talk about X-Wing, not argue with randos on the internet.

Nah. It ain't working like that.

If you are here to talk about X-Wing, don't bring your indefensible falsehoods into the discussion.

You say something dumb, be prepared to get your booty whooped.

1 minute ago, Commander Kaine said:

Nah. It ain't working like that.

If you are here to talk about X-Wing, don't bring your indefensible falsehoods into the discussion.

You say something dumb, be prepared to get your booty whooped.

You realize he brought it up first, right?

5 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

He said, trollishly, after having posted argumentative points not at all about X-Wing.


It's six minutes of my hobby-time I was gonna spend on the forums anyways. That's a small price to pay to help those who might be curious about something. Feel free to read it and reflect. Or feel free to stubbornly ignore it and bask in your own safely isolated world-view. Either way, your dismissive attitude is not going to affect my day and I hope you have a great day yourself!

Once again, you brought it up first.

I hope you have a wonderful day as well.

1 hour ago, SabineKey said:

So, people who don't have time to go through the elimination process and will get more enjoyment out of the game by "cutting to the chase" are out of luck?

I almost find that funny, since this is a hobby. Hobbies are meant to kill time, no??

45 minutes ago, Panzeh said:

I actually find the game good, so understanding it improved my appreciation of it, rather than detracted from it.

That's how good games work- you learn more about them , how to win, and it makes the game feel better.

Sure. But I think the learning process should be experiential, not research-based.

Cuz, again, this is a hobby, not a job.

5 minutes ago, Boba Rick said:

You realize he brought it up first, right?

He didn't say something indefensible and false. So... why does it matter if he said something about creationism?

Just now, Boba Rick said:

You realize he brought it up first, right?

Only as a passing aside as part of a useful analogy to support the point (critique) I was making about MathWing as an explanatory model for X-Wing.

I made the observation that MathWing was, like Creationism, neither falsifiable or terribly useful at making bold predictions. For many who have dabbled even at the intro-level in the nature of science or the nature of explanation/modeling, Creationism's weaknesses as an explanatory or predictive model are well known point of reference with regards to the problems of unfalsifiability and predictive power, hence my pulling it as an analogy to help support the point I was making it re: MathWing and its relationship to X-Wing.


You're the one who started a separate discussion totally isolated from X-Wing relevance about Creationsim vs Darwinism and the 'religion-ness' of both... ?

2 minutes ago, Icelom said:

Yes he literally explains that his formulas missed it and he went back and tweaked the formulas to match reality.

I see. Wookies got released on 13.7.2017, and his post was two weeks later. By the way, his ego can't be that huge if he "was also self admittedly wrong about many things." But clearly our experiences are different.

2 minutes ago, Boba Rick said:

You realize he brought it up first, right?

As example of a completely unscientific and entirely laughable 'theory' that can't make testable predictions. Which is correct and was useful for the discussion.

4 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

He didn't say something indefensible and false. So... why does it matter if he said something about creationism?

Which you (and others here) narrow-mindedly state as if there are absolutely no legitimate arguments in favor of intelligent design. As if the debate over the state-sponsored religion of evolution has nothing but facts on one side and feelings on the other.

If you sincerely believe that, then it is abundantly obvious to anyone who has bothered to consider the other side that you haven't taken five minutes to actually do that.

5 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I almost find that funny, since this is a hobby. Hobbies are meant to kill time, no??

Sure. But I think the learning process should be experiential, not research-based.

Cuz, again, this is a hobby, not a job.

Yes, but some people have less free time for hobbies than others. So it makes sense to want to maximize the enjoyment of that limited time and fly something you know is solid and you can have fun with.

I noticed you didn’t actually answer the question. Your dismissive tone suggests you think the players I described don’t actually matter. Would you care to refute this?

Just now, Boba Rick said:

there are absolutely no legitimate arguments in favor of intelligent design.

There aren't that hold up to scientific scrutiny.

And I did. And if you think it is abundantly obvious, you don't know what you are talking about. Don't assume my background, you know nothing about it.

Anyway. I'm not gonna talk about this anymore.

First of all, I like you, and this conversation saddens me.

Also, you are right. We should talk about spaceships. It's more fun.

1 hour ago, Boba Rick said:

That's humorously ironic because the exact same thing can be said about the religion of Darwinism (except there are plenty of glaring scientific problems with it).

I ... the ... it ... but ... wut?

This place is endlessly fascinating. Like a societal tide-pool.

18 minutes ago, Boba Rick said:

Which you (and others here) narrow-mindedly state as if there are absolutely no legitimate arguments in favor of intelligent design. As if the debate over the state-sponsored religion of evolution has nothing but facts on one side and feelings on the other.

If you sincerely believe that, then it is abundantly obvious to anyone who has bothered to consider the other side that you haven't taken five minutes to actually do that.

40 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Darwinian evolution is so thoroughly supported by an incredible mountain of evidence that it's not even funny to start.

... It's a little bit funny to start.

4 minutes ago, Jeff Wilder said:

I ... the ... it ... but ... wut?

This place is endlessly fascinating. Like a societal tide-pool.

I agree

28 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

By the way, his ego can't be that huge if he "was also self admittedly wrong about many things."

Just as a point of clarification, a big ego does not preclude admitting when one is wrong about things. In fact, as long as the big ego is a healthy ego, it makes it more likely that one is able to accept being wrong, admit it, and educate oneself.

MJ has a big ego. And I say that with all the support of "it takes one to know one."