I mean, the Preds are creatures with animalistic abilities and tendencies. They can withstand jumps from 30 feet or more straight down, and then jump back at least as high, as evidenced by the City Hunter's attack on Keyes' team in Predator 2. they can climb almost any surface, be it trees, or nearly sheer surfaces like buildings. Their ability to hunt by sensing body heat is phenomenal. And let us not forget their strength and durability. Put that together with their technology, and the Predator hounds [Predators] and predator dogs [The Predator] seem rather redundant.
Predators was far from being my favorite Predator movie, but the creatures, to some extent, behaved like traditional Preds, save for the Tracker. I could sort of forgive the Falconer because he did use technology for the hunt; sort of a smart disc with eyes, that required him to actually hunt and capture prey. the idea of the Tracker has never sat right with me. For all intents and purposes, Predators are animals with humanoid behaviors--they don't really need animals to track their prey. the only benefit of the hounds were that they were fodder for Royce and the other killers, causing them to deplete their ammo, but, the Jungle and City Hunters were capable, for the most part, of doing the same with active cammo. Like I said, just seemed a bit redundant, and takes away from the horror of being hunted by an actual monster with better tech than we have.
The ones they use as 'hounds' in Predators?
Made perfect sense for hunters.
I believe they are referred to as "hounds", but yeah I like them.. and they make perfect sense to me. :)
Hate?
"Predators" Hounds? No.
"The Predator" Hounds? Yes.
Yeah the ones from Predators work really well and their main scene is pretty intense.
But the ones in The Predator are just shit and just stand there while getting shot.
I'm pretty okay with them conceptually and in execution. I thought the ones in 'Predators' were more visually interesting (and I'm even willing to overlook the "HOW DO THEY EAT WITH THOSE GIANT TUSKS??" criticism, because of the Rule of Cool), but I thought the ones in 'The Predator' offered a bit more food for thought about lifeforms on Predator World.
They were better used in
Predators, but
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 19, 2018, 04:55:56 AM
"HOW DO THEY EAT WITH THOSE GIANT TUSKS??"
:P
How can you not love puppy dogs?
Quote from: SiL on Oct 19, 2018, 05:32:46 AM
They were better used in Predators, but
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 19, 2018, 04:55:56 AM
"HOW DO THEY EAT WITH THOSE GIANT TUSKS??"
:P
I'm not saying it's not a valid criticism, just that I'm willing to overlook it because they look cool. :P
I'll take them over the The Predator design any day.
For me the biggest redeeming design bit for 'The Predator' dogs is the dreadlocks, and the implication that such dreadlocks are just a common evolutionary trait on Predator World. I think that's a neat idea.
Other than that they're generic as hell.
While I like the idea of Predators having hunting hounds, I don't think either hound design is terrific.
In my opinion, the hounds in "Predators" are the worse of the two, and remind me of the the original Predator design before Stan Winston's... as in its construct was poorly, poorly designed. Forget how the hound maintains its balance to run instead of falling on its face as it sprints, but how does it chase prey at high speeds without tusks and horns always getting hung up in the rocks, foilage and environment around it? Evolution tends to be much smarter and would give that defensive protection to a slower plant eater. It's ultimately a poor, not well thought out concept to me. And the poor cgi did not help it.
The hounds in "The Predator" look tougher and more legitimate as a living creature, but their design is uninspired and too Earth dog like. It would have been much nicer to see a more alien look to them, more exotic. A little more creativity. Make it functional, but more interesting, more memorable. Instead, they're more meh.
Now in regards to what the hounds actually did in each movie (which speaks nothing to their design), I disagree somewhat with @Frosty Venom with the complaint that "The Predator" hounds just stand there while getting shot" (even though one chases Quinn through the bleachers until it was killed). Hunting hounds are not supposed to kill the prey, they are only supposed to follow the scent and lead the hunter to its prey, so the hunter can kill (or this time capture) its prey. So it actually makes sense to stand there and bark, so to speak. The hounds in "Predators" were definitely more fun to watch in regards to action, but it doesn't make much sense to attack the game (even when your hunting a herd) if the name of the game is sport.
The dogs from The Predator? No. I didn't care for what I saw of them
The Hounds from Predators? Yes. They were ferocious and uncompromising. I also liked their design better.
As other here have already stated the ones from Predators were perfectly fine. The ones from the Predator not so much.
I had no idea this topic had posted. I started this on my phone when it froze. I would have edited it long before now had I known. Check out the 1st post again, I've gone into detail about what irks me about them.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Oct 19, 2018, 06:03:07 AM
How can you not love puppy dogs?
No barbecue sauce, that's how....it makes a hell of a difference.
Quote from: The Cruentus on Oct 19, 2018, 09:19:56 PM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Oct 19, 2018, 06:03:07 AM
How can you not love puppy dogs?
No barbecue sauce, that's how....it makes a hell of a difference.
Bro lay off the alcohol lol.
I don't get how people talk like hounds from predators were a very big part of the movie, and those from The Predator weren't... Narratively speaking, The Predator dogs are more developed. Predators dogs are used in just one scene, then bye.
It's already straining things when you have aliens that just so happened to evolve into humanoids convergently - adding dog-like creatures that act just like dogs and are used just like dogs and basically are dogs just seems really uninspired to me. The ones from Predators at least felt like dog equivalents rather than straight-up dogs with scales, but I'd still prefer the filmmakers got a little more creative.
^
Quote from: Naginata on Oct 20, 2018, 12:18:18 AM
It's already straining things when you have aliens that just so happened to evolve into humanoids convergently - adding dog-like creatures that act just like dogs and are used just like dogs and basically are dogs just seems really uninspired to me. The ones from Predators at least felt like dog equivalents rather than straight-up dogs with scales, but I'd still prefer the filmmakers got a little more creative.
I strongly disbelieve in evolution, but yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with the majority of your post.
So you're saying that the Predator are too animalistic to have a use for companion hunters? They probably were just his pets. The one thing funny about them though is that even when they were meant to be menacing... they were still cuter than a junkyard dog.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 04:10:52 AM
So you're saying that the Predator are too animalistic to have a use for companion hunters? They probably were just his pets. The one thing funny about them though is that even when they were meant to be menacing... they were still cuter than a junkyard dog.
Look at it this way : we use use animals like horses and dogs because we lack the abilities they have. A horse will get you from points "A" to "B" far quicker than we could on foot. Dogs have tracking senses, and sharp teeth that we don't; we're supplementing our abilities with theirs.
I'm pretty sure Preds can outpace a horse, at least for a while, and they've certainly got the senses and viciousness of a pack animal.
But, hey, I can respect anyone that likes the hounds.
Quote from: BigDaddyJohn on Oct 19, 2018, 11:02:22 PM
I don't get how people talk like hounds from predators were a very big part of the movie, and those from The Predator weren't... Narratively speaking, The Predator dogs are more developed. Predators dogs are used in just one scene, then bye.
Narratively speaking, the Predator Hounds in "The Predator" were just there as a lazy Deus Dog Machina. -_-
Vomiting grenades, guns, appearing in places that make no sense and acting like a darn Disney animal. A lot of things rubbed me the wrong way about The Predator, but the Hounds are certainly up there with the top 5 wrong way rubbers.
Their design was also pretty poor, looking like something you'd expect from a Predator saturday morning cartoon.
On the other hand, the ones from Predators worked well specifically because they were used sparingly, and they were actually a frightening presence. They look scary, they look alien. They don't play fetch with the heroes, the heroes are foxes, the heroes are pheasants, they are not the pet owners! >_<
Quote from: AMITY_PREDATOR on Oct 20, 2018, 01:05:31 AM
I strongly disbelieve in evolution
Like... like as a scientific concept? Like, in general?
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 20, 2018, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: AMITY_PREDATOR on Oct 20, 2018, 01:05:31 AM
I strongly disbelieve in evolution
Like... like as a scientific concept? Like, in general?
I believe every creature on earth was as distinct from the beginning, as they are now. A century of Radio-mutation experiments, the fossil record, and, the DNA code leads me in that direction.
I think the dogs in The Predator are god awful. Have thought so since I first read about them in the script. They're an idea that I don't see how they could have worked from the beginning - especially the lobotomy dog. Cute helpful companion with a wagging tail and a mind to playfully serve, dressed in the skin of a Predator when it really has more in common with a lab. I know I'm being harsh, but the idea was just so unnecessary and didn't have a chance of fitting in the Predator universe. It's just so out of place.
I liked the hounds in Predators because they were a different concept - they had the feeling of being a "hunting dog" without completely emulating human canines, in body or spirit.
Quote from: AMITY_PREDATOR on Oct 20, 2018, 01:05:31 AM
I strongly disbelieve in evolution, but yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with the majority of your post.
Let's agree to disagree on that one. It just frustrates me that - given the chance to design animals from the Predator homeworld - they went with outright dog analogues. No mandibles? No bony forehead? They have the dreads and glowing green blood, so clearly they're meant to be related - and yet they have noses, which Preds don't have. Even the dreads - at least give em' something like the OG Predalien from Duel, where they're less flexible and more swept back.
Quote from: AMITY_PREDATOR on Oct 20, 2018, 02:05:25 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 20, 2018, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: AMITY_PREDATOR on Oct 20, 2018, 01:05:31 AM
I strongly disbelieve in evolution
Like... like as a scientific concept? Like, in general?
I believe every creature on earth was as distinct from the beginning, as they are now. A century of Radio-mutation experiments, the fossil record, and, the DNA code leads me in that direction.
Huh.
I, uh, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Quote from: Naginata on Oct 20, 2018, 07:23:33 PM
Quote from: AMITY_PREDATOR on Oct 20, 2018, 01:05:31 AM
I strongly disbelieve in evolution, but yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with the majority of your post.
Let's agree to disagree on that one. It just frustrates me that - given the chance to design animals from the Predator homeworld - they went with outright dog analogues. No mandibles? No bony forehead? They have the dreads and glowing green blood, so clearly they're meant to be related - and yet they have noses, which Preds don't have. Even the dreads - at least give em' something like the OG Predalien from Duel, where they're less flexible and more swept back.
Personally if they'd thrown mandibles on the Predadogs, given the already introduced idea of genetic manipulation, I'd have immediately thought that the Predadogs were genetically altered Predators rather than a distinct creature.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 20, 2018, 07:31:35 PM
Quote from: AMITY_PREDATOR on Oct 20, 2018, 02:05:25 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 20, 2018, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: AMITY_PREDATOR on Oct 20, 2018, 01:05:31 AM
I strongly disbelieve in evolution
Like... like as a scientific concept? Like, in general?
I believe every creature on earth was as distinct from the beginning, as they are now. A century of Radio-mutation experiments, the fossil record, and, the DNA code leads me in that direction.
Huh.
I, uh, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Quote from: Naginata on Oct 20, 2018, 07:23:33 PM
Quote from: AMITY_PREDATOR on Oct 20, 2018, 01:05:31 AM
I strongly disbelieve in evolution, but yeah, I wholeheartedly agree with the majority of your post.
Let's agree to disagree on that one. It just frustrates me that - given the chance to design animals from the Predator homeworld - they went with outright dog analogues. No mandibles? No bony forehead? They have the dreads and glowing green blood, so clearly they're meant to be related - and yet they have noses, which Preds don't have. Even the dreads - at least give em' something like the OG Predalien from Duel, where they're less flexible and more swept back.
Personally if they'd thrown mandibles on the Predadogs, given the already introduced idea of genetic manipulation, I'd have immediately thought that the Predadogs were genetically altered Predators rather than a distinct creature.
That's absolutely fine, however, i'd extremely remiss if I didn't point out that not only does the fossil record not contain the various intermediate links documenting transitional change of the species, that evolutionists expected to find, but even the staunchest evolutionists admit that species "suddenly appear " in the record, and to them it's troubling, and to quote one in particular, it causes "distress" that those links weren't and aren't found..honest biologists and paleontologists admit that the fossil record shows that animals are as distinct now, as when they came into the record, some becoming "bigger and bumpier " but essentially remain the same.
As for DNA, you might want to look up the late Anthony Flew, an Atheist of some 50 years who had a change of heart after studying the DNA code, which Bill Gates likened to a much more complex computer program. If we code computer programs, who, then wrote the code of life?
these are hardly my only reasons for disbelief, but I don't come here to discuss evolution. I merely saw a comment about it, and remarked on it.
^ Yeah, that's fine. I strongly disagree, but if that's your belief, that's your belief, and I shouldn't have brought it back up; it's just beating a dead horse, and unfair to boot, since it's a minority view and I'm basically inviting people to dog-pile you. My bad. :-[
It's cool. I'm capable of standing up for my beliefs either way.
Dude, if we round up from .01% then we can safely say nothing has ever been fossilized. It's a rare event that only happens under specific circumstances. Also consider just how big the Earth is and that they're really not that many people digging for fossils and most land is private. I mean this is the same argument people make to explain aliens don't exist. They claim we've been listening for decades and havn't heard anything, thus aliens do not exist. They too have no understanding of just how big the universe really is and the science behind it all.
Here we go...
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 20, 2018, 10:34:15 PM
Here we go...
I though I found something while digging in the yard yesterday. It was just another rock, of course.
Stupid rocks.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 10:32:07 PM
I mean this is the same argument people make to explain aliens don't exist. They claim we've been listening for decades and havn't heard anything, thus aliens do not exist.
I don't believe in aliens. But the one thing I find interesting is that I've never heard anyone say that the aliens might be stupid. For all we know, if there were other forms of life, we might be the more intelligent of the two. I can just see them flying past us, with no idea of how to stop. Or maybe meteors are just their version of hello notes tied to rocks. The last time they successfully sent us a communique, they killed the dinosaurs. :D
Heck, it may be our space-ships visiting them in secret a thousand years from now. Oh, the fun we could have. ;)
Can we not? Please, for the love of God, can we just not? If I could go back in time and cut my fingers off to avoid typing that, I would do it in a heartbeat. There is no point. No one's mind will be changed, no one will come away smarter, and the thread will be completely derailed; it is utterly pointless to have this debate here, so let's just not.
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 10:50:14 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 20, 2018, 10:34:15 PM
Here we go...
I though I found something while digging in the yard yesterday. It was just another rock, of course.
Stupid rocks.
"I got a rock." - Charlie Brown
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 10:58:58 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 10:50:14 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 20, 2018, 10:34:15 PM
Here we go...
I though I found something while digging in the yard yesterday. It was just another rock, of course.
Stupid rocks.
"I got a rock." - Charlie Brown
Oh yeah? Well, I got Charlie Brown.
For two rocks and a Milky Way, you can have him back.
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 10:58:58 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 10:50:14 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 20, 2018, 10:34:15 PM
Here we go...
I though I found something while digging in the yard yesterday. It was just another rock, of course.
Stupid rocks.
"I got a rock." - Charlie Brown
Oh yeah? Well, I got Charlie Brown.
For two rocks and a Milky Way, you can have him back.
I got M&Ms, but no Milky Ways today.
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:04:12 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 10:58:58 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 10:50:14 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 20, 2018, 10:34:15 PM
Here we go...
I though I found something while digging in the yard yesterday. It was just another rock, of course.
Stupid rocks.
"I got a rock." - Charlie Brown
Oh yeah? Well, I got Charlie Brown.
For two rocks and a Milky Way, you can have him back.
I got M&Ms, but no Milky Ways today.
Lucy says it has to be a Milky Way, or the toenails start coming off.
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 11:06:30 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:04:12 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 11:01:59 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 10:58:58 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 10:50:14 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 20, 2018, 10:34:15 PM
Here we go...
I though I found something while digging in the yard yesterday. It was just another rock, of course.
Stupid rocks.
"I got a rock." - Charlie Brown
Oh yeah? Well, I got Charlie Brown.
For two rocks and a Milky Way, you can have him back.
I got M&Ms, but no Milky Ways today.
Lucy says it has to be a Milky Way, or the toenails start coming off.
Well, that got dark.
As in I got dark chocolate Milky Ways.
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 10:58:58 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 10:50:14 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 20, 2018, 10:34:15 PM
Here we go...
I though I found something while digging in the yard yesterday. It was just another rock, of course.
Stupid rocks.
"I got a rock." - Charlie Brown
That ain't a rock, it's a horse apple.
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:10:12 PM
Well, that got dark.
As in I got dark chocolate Milky Ways.
Put it and the rocks in a Linus's binky, and drop it by the trash can near the merry go round. If I see anyone, or I think the Chocolate has melted, I can't vouch for Chuck's safety.
PS. I may be doing this against my will. She has my football. Help Me!
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 20, 2018, 11:13:17 PM
That ain't a rock, it's a horse apple.
aw.....sh*t!
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 11:15:15 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:10:12 PM
Well, that got dark.
As in I got dark chocolate Milky Ways.
Put it and the rocks in a Linus's binky, and drop it by the trash can near the merry go round. If I see anyone, or I think the Chocolate has melted, I can't vouch for Chuck's safety.
PS. I may be doing this against my will. She has my football. Help Me!
Should I call backup? I can drag Hudson away from the TV.
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:30:20 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 11:15:15 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:10:12 PM
Well, that got dark.
As in I got dark chocolate Milky Ways.
Put it and the rocks in a Linus's binky, and drop it by the trash can near the merry go round. If I see anyone, or I think the Chocolate has melted, I can't vouch for Chuck's safety.
PS. I may be doing this against my will. She has my football. Help Me!
Should I call backup? I can drag Hudson away from the TV.
Screw Hudson, call the Navy!
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 11:36:14 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:30:20 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 11:15:15 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:10:12 PM
Well, that got dark.
As in I got dark chocolate Milky Ways.
Put it and the rocks in a Linus's binky, and drop it by the trash can near the merry go round. If I see anyone, or I think the Chocolate has melted, I can't vouch for Chuck's safety.
PS. I may be doing this against my will. She has my football. Help Me!
Should I call backup? I can drag Hudson away from the TV.
Screw Hudson, call the Navy!
Got it. Would you like the Air Force, too?
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:42:07 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 11:36:14 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:30:20 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 11:15:15 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:10:12 PM
Well, that got dark.
As in I got dark chocolate Milky Ways.
Put it and the rocks in a Linus's binky, and drop it by the trash can near the merry go round. If I see anyone, or I think the Chocolate has melted, I can't vouch for Chuck's safety.
PS. I may be doing this against my will. She has my football. Help Me!
Should I call backup? I can drag Hudson away from the TV.
Screw Hudson, call the Navy!
Got it. Would you like the Air Force, too?
I need help, not a military parade. :D
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 11:44:56 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:42:07 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 11:36:14 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:30:20 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 20, 2018, 11:15:15 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 11:10:12 PM
Well, that got dark.
As in I got dark chocolate Milky Ways.
Put it and the rocks in a Linus's binky, and drop it by the trash can near the merry go round. If I see anyone, or I think the Chocolate has melted, I can't vouch for Chuck's safety.
PS. I may be doing this against my will. She has my football. Help Me!
Should I call backup? I can drag Hudson away from the TV.
Screw Hudson, call the Navy!
Got it. Would you like the Air Force, too?
I need help, not a military parade. :D
Every formation is a parade, though.
We've got the package.
....You'll be hearing from us.
Stay tuned for scenes from next weeks episode of:
It's A Hostage Situation Charlie Brown
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 12:02:21 AM
We've got the package.
....You'll be hearing from us.
Stay tuned for scenes from next weeks episode of:
It's A Hostage Situation Charlie Brown
I'm on the edge of my seat.
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 21, 2018, 12:14:10 AM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 12:02:21 AM
We've got the package.
....You'll be hearing from us.
Stay tuned for scenes from next weeks episode of:
It's A Hostage Situation Charlie Brown
I'm on the edge of my seat.
Be careful, I hear you can get hemorrhoids doing that.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 10:32:07 PM
Dude, if we round up from .01% then we can safely say nothing has ever been fossilized. It's a rare event that only happens under specific circumstances. Also consider just how big the Earth is and that they're really not that many people digging for fossils and most land is private. I mean this is the same argument people make to explain aliens don't exist. They claim we've been listening for decades and havn't heard anything, thus aliens do not exist. They too have no understanding of just how big the universe really is and the science behind it all.
I'm going to say this much: there are enough fossils from the the so-called Cambrian explosion, that most evolutionists use the same language "they just appear in the record" . And most agree that there are NO transitional links. More than 200 million fossils have been uncovered as well as billions of microfossils [single celled fossils], and yet the links that should prove the theory are... Missing.
The archaeopteryx is supposed to be a link between a reptile and the bird, and yet, most of its features are found in birds today. Yet, no fossils leading to it. No fossils of reptiles with wing-like appendages. Nothing showing how the reptilian scale became the complex feather.
For a century scientists tried to bring about evolution through controlled mutations which was the basis of natural selection. The animals, mostly fruit flies, that were used, were far weaker than the wild varieties. Evolution is supposed to make stronger, not weaker. No matter how many ways they mutated, they remained flies. In time, the flies that were allowed to keep breeding, began hatching normal fruit flies again because the DNA is programmed to keep a species where they are. Never will you get a different animal from any species. And you never have. The organic soup theory, the idea that life came from space, does not stand. How the DNA code miraculously coded itself does not stand. Basically anything that requires a language requires intelligence... Apparently the life code does not.
I'll go one further, these various evolutionists begrudgingly point to the fact that the fossil record compliments the Genesis account. Their words, not mine. Mind you, all this business about evolution stemmed from Darwin's observation of adaptation. Not animals becoming something else, just animals adapting to their environment.
Now, when I said that I did not believe in evolution, that was not a challenge to anyone. But I see I'm being challenged. and I will fight for what I believe in if I'm challenged. So either drop the subject, or we can continue to derail the topic. I'm good either way.
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 12:17:53 AM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 21, 2018, 12:14:10 AM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 12:02:21 AM
We've got the package.
....You'll be hearing from us.
Stay tuned for scenes from next weeks episode of:
It's A Hostage Situation Charlie Brown
I'm on the edge of my seat.
Be careful, I hear you can get hemorrhoids doing that.
I shall stand up and attempt to do something productive, then. Like . . . not kill anymore threads, and . . . actually write something.
Quote from: AMITY_PREDATOR on Oct 21, 2018, 12:22:33 AM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Oct 20, 2018, 10:32:07 PM
Dude, if we round up from .01% then we can safely say nothing has ever been fossilized. It's a rare event that only happens under specific circumstances. Also consider just how big the Earth is and that they're really not that many people digging for fossils and most land is private. I mean this is the same argument people make to explain aliens don't exist. They claim we've been listening for decades and havn't heard anything, thus aliens do not exist. They too have no understanding of just how big the universe really is and the science behind it all.
I'm going to say this much: there are enough fossils from the the so-called Cambrian explosion, that most evolutionists use the same language "they just appear in the record" . And most agree that there are NO transitional links. More than 200 million fossils have been uncovered as well as billions of microfossils [single celled fossils], and yet the links that should prove the theory are... Missing.
The archaeopteryx is supposed to be a link between a reptile and the bird, and yet, most of its features are found in birds today. Yet, no fossils leading to it. No fossils of reptiles with wing-like appendages. Nothing showing how the reptilian scale became the complex feather.
For a century scientists tried to bring about evolution through controlled mutations which was the basis of natural selection. The animals, mostly fruit flies, that were used, were far weaker than the wild varieties. Evolution is supposed to make stronger, not weaker. No matter how many ways they mutated, they remained flies. In time, the flies that were allowed to keep breeding, began hatching normal fruit flies again because the DNA is programmed to keep a species where they are. Never will you get a different animal from any species. And you never have. The organic soup theory, the idea that life came from space, does not stand. How the DNA code miraculously coded itself does not stand. Basically anything that requires a language requires intelligence... Apparently the life code does not.
I'll go one further, these various evolutionists begrudgingly point to the fact that the fossil record compliments the Genesis account. Their words, not mine. Mind you, all this business about evolution stemmed from Darwin's observation of adaptation. Not animals becoming something else, just animals adapting to their environment.
Now, when I said that I did not believe in evolution, that was not a challenge to anyone. But I see I'm being challenged. and I will fight for what I believe in if I'm challenged. So either drop the subject, or we can continue to derail the topic. I'm good either way.
I know you're not going to change your mind, and that's fine. But just to clarify; missing link is a pseudoscientific concept, which probably has its roots in medieval christianity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_chain_of_being):
(https://i.imgur.com/6nwO4BM.png)
The scientific concept is transitional fossil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil), as evolution is not a linear process, and there were many intermediate forms between early primates and modern humans (and the same with the other species).
(https://i.imgur.com/Pni1VHl.jpg)
But equally important, Evolution is a scientific theory (https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html) and not just a mainstream theory. I.e, it is more than your daily hypothesis/conjecture, since it is based on real evidence (like fossils). More specifically, a scientific theory is how researchers interpret such evidence.
Of course, science can't explain it everything (and I'm fine with that, cos a universe without mystery it would have been f**king boring :P), but at least science is an honest tool of knowledge and it doesn't fill the gaps with fairy tales and magic. And I respect that. :)
Evolution theory teaches that the universe came into existence on its own, having fine tuned the forces necessary to bring about existence as we know it, set the planets in their orbits, gave us a moon that not only stabilizes our planet's orbit, but also just so happened to provide us with a lesser light source when the sun sets.
Life emerged on its own through multiple repeated, exceedingly impossible accidents, the odds of it happening even once is so great Harold Morowitz, a Yale University physicist, calculated that the chances of getting the simplest living bacterium by random changes is 1 in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros.
That's 2 miracles by my count, not counting the multiple times a living cell randomly Came into existence .one might say it takes a great deal of faith to believe in evolution . And to be honest, sounds quite a bit like magic.
In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted the dilemma. He stated that over the last 50 years, "no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.
Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: "A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin's day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found."
Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin's Enigma: "The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth."
Two British scientists confirm that the genetic code is not simply the product of random chance. "Their analysis has shown [the genetic code] to be among the best of more than a billion billion possible codes," notes New Scientist magazine. Of the roughly 1020 (1 followed by 20 zeros) possible genetic codes, only one was selected early in the history of life. Why this specific one? Because it minimizes errors made during the protein-making process or errors caused by genetic mutations. In other words, the specific code guarantees that laws of heredity are strictly followed. Although some ascribe the selection of this genetic code to "strong selective pressures," the two researchers have concluded that "it is extremely unlikely that such an efficient code arose by chance."
Michael Behe raises serious doubts about whether evolution can explain the existence of the cell. He speaks of molecular machines that "haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along 'highways' made of other molecules . . . Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex." Behe argues that the cell can function only as a complete entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution. He uses the example of a mousetrap. This simple apparatus can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled. He uses this illustration to explain what he terms "irreducible complexity."
Behe argues that the cell can function only as a complete entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution. He uses the example of a mousetrap. This simple apparatus can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled. He uses this illustration to explain what he terms "irreducible complexity."*
Biochemical investigation has shown that blood clotting involves many factors, none of which can be missing for the process to succeed. Behe asks: "Once clotting has begun, what stops it from continuing until all the blood . . . has solidified?" He explains that "the formation, limitation, strengthening, and removal of a blood clot" make up an integrated biological system. If any part fails, then the system fails.
Russell Doolittle, evolutionist and professor of biochemistry at the University of California, asks: "How in the world did this complex and delicately balanced process evolve? . . . The paradox was, if each protein depended on activation by another, how could the system ever have arisen? Of what use would any part of the scheme be without the whole ensemble?" Using evolutionary arguments, Doolittle tries to explain the origin of the process. However, Professor Behe points out that there would be an "enormous amount of luck needed to get the right gene pieces in the right places." He shows that Doolittle's explanation and casual language conceal tremendous difficulties.
Thus, one of the major objections to the evolutionary model is the insurmountable hurdle of irreducible complexity. Behe states: "I emphasize that natural selection, the engine of Darwinian evolution, only works if there is something to select—something that is useful right now, not in the future."
Professor Behe states that some scientists have studied "mathematical models for evolution or new mathematical methods for comparing and interpreting sequence data." However, he concludes: "The mathematics assumes that real-world evolution is a gradual, random process; it does not (and cannot) demonstrate it." (Last phrase italics ours.) He earlier said: "If you search the scientific literature on evolution, and if you focus your search on the question of how molecular machines—the basis of life—developed, you find an eerie and complete silence. The complexity of life's foundation has paralyzed science's attempt to account for it; molecular machines raise an as-yet-impenetrable barrier to Darwinism's universal reach."
French science writer Philippe Chambon wrote: "Darwin himself wondered how nature selected emerging forms before they were perfectly functional. The list of evolutionary mysteries is endless. And today's biologists have to humbly admit, with Prof. Jean Génermont of the University of South Paris in Orsay, that 'the synthetic theory of evolution cannot readily explain the origin of complex organs.'"
"Any science of the past . . . that excludes the possibility of design or creation a priori ceases to be a search for the truth, and becomes the servant (or slave) of a problematical philosophical doctrine, namely, naturalism."—Origins Research.
"The influence of evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age."—Evolution: A Theory in Crisis
"Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. . . . There are assertions that such evolution occurred, but absolutely none are supported by pertinent experiments or calculations. Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of knowledge, it can truly be said that . . . the assertion of Darwinian molecular evolution is merely bluster."—Darwin's Black Box
Inside the cell, there is "a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity."—Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. . And I attribute a supreme mind for being behind that supreme technology.
Gyula Gyenis, a researcher at the Dept. of Biological Anthropology, Eotvos Lorand University, Hungary wrote in 2002: "The classification and the evolutionary place of hominid fossils has been under constant debate."
Anthropologist Anthony Ostric weighed in on the matter of fossil evidence stating, "at best it is only a hypothesis and not a well-supported one at that....there is no evidence that man has not remained essentially the same since the first evidence of his appearance."
Phillip E. Johnson, a University of California law professor, notes that the evidence for evolution is lacking but that its supporters still often ridicule those who question it. The article comments: "Evolution theory is having serious trouble with the evidence—but its proponents don't want an honest debate that might undermine their world view."
No, my mind can't be changed. On the other hand, it appears that some evolutionists' minds have changed . And let me be clear on a couple of things: I'm no creationist. They believe the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days. The word for "day" used in the creation account "YOHM" can mean Looong periods of time. Billions of years long. at Genesis 2:7 we find that God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person [soul]. It's worth noting that the Bible too says that life emerged from non-living matter, however, the catalyst to convert that matter into life was not chance or random, non-intelligent forces, but a highly intelligent Creator. It should also be noted that "The World Book Encyclopedia" cites: All the chemical elements that make up living things are also present in non-living matter." The Bible certainly isn't at odds with science here.
You talk about fairy tales and magic. I'm talking about someone of vast intelligence creating everything. You're talking about millions of improbable accidents taking place; unintelligent forces shaping who and what we are as a species. Which one sounds more like magic and fairy tales? Judge for yourself.
Definitely the giant space dude making everything that sounds more like fantasy.
I'm blown away that we're having an evolution debate in TYOOL 2018, but here we are.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 21, 2018, 06:07:50 AM
I'm blown away that we're having an evolution debate in TYOOL 2018, but here we are.
Scientist and engineer Murphy O'Dean observes: "Rather than discard a theory that does not stand up to fact, the direction of 'evolutionary science' has become a statement of faith that 'evolution must be true.'" Conflicting evidence and the lack of evidence are either ignored or explained away.
Why? Michael Behe, molecular biologist, says in Darwin's Black Box: "Many people, including many important and well-respected scientists, just don't want there to be anything beyond nature. They don't want a supernatural being to affect nature."
Yeah. We're having this debate because in spite a vocal majority shouting "evolution is fact! Evolution is fact! " it's anything but, and there's a growing number of scientists who don't buy it. They can't prove that life began on its own, but they assert that it did. There are no fossils showing the branching or even multiple branchings off of common ancestors. And they Continue to assert that. Yes all living things share DNA. from this side, it's not because we have the same ancestor, but because we have the same maker. The DNA code has a mechanism of intelligence. Ignore that if you wish. Seriously, I'm at the point where I'm comfortable with a "wait and see" attitude.
1st quotation is very true and observed from the last few hours of comments..
2nd quotation obviously applies, but the guy above you. SIL? Really fits. ::)
I'm agnostic, but you've spent two pages using a lot of words to say nothing of any real substance, so forgive me if I'm not a convert.
I need a stiff drink.
Quote from: SiL on Oct 21, 2018, 07:51:00 AM
I'm agnostic, but you've spent two pages using a lot of words to say nothing of any real substance, so forgive me if I'm not a convert.
Easy to dismiss what you choose not to accept. I've made my case as to why the entire evolutionary theory is weak, and improbable, if it doesn't move you [or anyone else here], it's of no consequence to me.
No, just easy to dismiss poorly made and unconvincing arguments.
I want to know if there are Predator cats for those hounds to chase! ;D
Quote from: Kurai on Oct 20, 2018, 05:25:33 AM
Quote from: BigDaddyJohn on Oct 19, 2018, 11:02:22 PM
I don't get how people talk like hounds from predators were a very big part of the movie, and those from The Predator weren't... Narratively speaking, The Predator dogs are more developed. Predators dogs are used in just one scene, then bye.
Narratively speaking, the Predator Hounds in "The Predator" were just there as a lazy Deus Dog Machina. -_-
Vomiting grenades, guns, appearing in places that make no sense and acting like a darn Disney animal. A lot of things rubbed me the wrong way about The Predator, but the Hounds are certainly up there with the top 5 wrong way rubbers.
Their design was also pretty poor, looking like something you'd expect from a Predator saturday morning cartoon.
On the other hand, the ones from Predators worked well specifically because they were used sparingly, and they were actually a frightening presence. They look scary, they look alien. They don't play fetch with the heroes, the heroes are foxes, the heroes are pheasants, they are not the pet owners! >_<
If you think they are frightening loool
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLInNVsmlBUlREtDyJ2VpCLWK50Ua-cegZ
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLInNVsmlBUlQT_peuWctrmGMiLngK-6fb
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Oct 21, 2018, 12:35:54 PM
I want to know if there are Predator cats for those hounds to chase! ;D
Plot twist: xenomorphs are revealed to be "Predator cats".
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 21, 2018, 01:34:39 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Oct 21, 2018, 12:35:54 PM
I want to know if there are Predator cats for those hounds to chase! ;D
Plot twist: xenomorphs are revealed to be "Predator cats".
LOL :laugh:
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 21, 2018, 01:34:39 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Oct 21, 2018, 12:35:54 PM
I want to know if there are Predator cats for those hounds to chase! ;D
Plot twist: xenomorphs are revealed to be "Predator cats".
On Acheron, cats chase you!
Y'know, there is something subtly catlike about Xenos, particularly the Big Chap; maybe it's the way it flips the f**k out on poor Jonsey's cage in the DC, maybe it's the sudden movements and general dickery, but that thing's personality is like a feral cat crossed with a shark.
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 21, 2018, 01:34:39 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Oct 21, 2018, 12:35:54 PM
I want to know if there are Predator cats for those hounds to chase! ;D
Plot twist: xenomorphs are revealed to be "Predator cats".
On Acheron, cats chase you!
So, it wasn't a bug hunt after all.
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 21, 2018, 05:30:27 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 21, 2018, 01:34:39 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Oct 21, 2018, 12:35:54 PM
I want to know if there are Predator cats for those hounds to chase! ;D
Plot twist: xenomorphs are revealed to be "Predator cats".
On Acheron, cats chase you!
So, it wasn't a bug hunt after all.
Of course it was. The bugs were hunting us. :)
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 09:48:57 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 21, 2018, 05:30:27 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 21, 2018, 01:34:39 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Oct 21, 2018, 12:35:54 PM
I want to know if there are Predator cats for those hounds to chase! ;D
Plot twist: xenomorphs are revealed to be "Predator cats".
On Acheron, cats chase you!
So, it wasn't a bug hunt after all.
Of course it was. The bugs were hunting us. :)
Well, my mind has been blown today.
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 21, 2018, 09:51:26 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 09:48:57 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 21, 2018, 05:30:27 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 21, 2018, 01:34:39 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Oct 21, 2018, 12:35:54 PM
I want to know if there are Predator cats for those hounds to chase! ;D
Plot twist: xenomorphs are revealed to be "Predator cats".
On Acheron, cats chase you!
So, it wasn't a bug hunt after all.
Of course it was. The bugs were hunting us. :)
Well, my mind has been blown today.
Welcome, to the AVP Galaxy! ;D
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 09:55:37 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 21, 2018, 09:51:26 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 09:48:57 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 21, 2018, 05:30:27 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 21, 2018, 01:34:39 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Oct 21, 2018, 12:35:54 PM
I want to know if there are Predator cats for those hounds to chase! ;D
Plot twist: xenomorphs are revealed to be "Predator cats".
On Acheron, cats chase you!
So, it wasn't a bug hunt after all.
Of course it was. The bugs were hunting us. :)
Well, my mind has been blown today.
Welcome, to the AVP Galaxy! ;D
At least I know I made a good choice coming here.
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 21, 2018, 10:00:01 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 09:55:37 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 21, 2018, 09:51:26 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 09:48:57 PM
Quote from: TheSailingRabbit on Oct 21, 2018, 05:30:27 PM
Quote from: Huggs on Oct 21, 2018, 03:06:00 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 21, 2018, 01:34:39 PM
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Oct 21, 2018, 12:35:54 PM
I want to know if there are Predator cats for those hounds to chase! ;D
Plot twist: xenomorphs are revealed to be "Predator cats".
On Acheron, cats chase you!
So, it wasn't a bug hunt after all.
Of course it was. The bugs were hunting us. :)
Well, my mind has been blown today.
Welcome, to the AVP Galaxy! ;D
At least I know I made a good choice coming here.
Indeed. I'd show you around, but I'm late for an Alien 3 vs the world debate. Feel free to make yourself at home, and don't forget to check out the film section. SM should be dropping his trademark "Quite" over there. It's truly a sight to behold.
Quite (TM).
Rejoicing in the revelation that one has become way too predictable.
Quote from: SiL on Oct 21, 2018, 12:12:46 PM
No, just easy to dismiss poorly made and unconvincing arguments.
None are so blind... Like I said, the arguments and explanations don't suit your way of thinking. You want to be agnostic, Keep On Keepin On. No skin off my nose and I hope one day you remember this conversation. ;)
There also seems to be some confusion among some of you about the difference between adaptation and evolution. I certainly do agree that living things can adapt to their environments, and pass those advantages to their offspring. I also know these creatures aren't becoming anything new. As a matter of fact, Darwin's finches were studied from the 1970s to at least the the 90s. The researchers, Peter and rosemary Grant predicted that a new species of finch would arise within the period of 200 years. In 1987 Grant reported to Nature magazine that they had seen a "reversal in the direction of selection". By 1991 Grant wrote "the population, subjected to natural selection is oscillating back and forth," according to climate changes. The finches beak sizes Changed by the generation accordingly to cope with a changing environment . They weren't becoming anything new. In fact, the so-called "different species" were found to be mating with one another.
You can all go back to believing whatever you like now.
About those Predator hounds, do they chase their tails or what?? :P
Did the ones in 'The Predator' have tails? I didn't notice if they did.
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 22, 2018, 06:10:30 PM
Did the ones in 'The Predator' have tails? I didn't notice if they did.
Asking the real questions here.
Quote from: whiterabbit on Oct 22, 2018, 10:36:54 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 22, 2018, 06:10:30 PM
Did the ones in 'The Predator' have tails? I didn't notice if they did.
Asking the real questions here.
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/l46CwsAIlmnXlRC9O/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5bce5b97346d316d495c3352)
Quote from: Voodoo Magic on Oct 22, 2018, 11:19:36 PM
Quote from: whiterabbit on Oct 22, 2018, 10:36:54 PM
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 22, 2018, 06:10:30 PM
Did the ones in 'The Predator' have tails? I didn't notice if they did.
Asking the real questions here.
https://media3.giphy.com/media/l46CwsAIlmnXlRC9O/giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a5bce5b97346d316d495c3352
No one understands the RONREY PERFECTION of my POOCHS TAIL!
Quote from: Xenomrph on Oct 22, 2018, 06:10:30 PM
Did the ones in 'The Predator' have tails? I didn't notice if they did.
If I remember correctly, yes, but it was more like a short, docked tail close to the rump.