Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Aledhere

  • Rank
    Junior member

LotRO Data

  • Server
    [EN] Gilrain
  • Kinship
    Defenders of Middle Earth
  1. blessing_777@yahoo.com

    My name is Blessing

    i am a young lady with a kind and open heart,

    I enjoy my life,but life can't be complete if you don't have a person to share it

    with. blessing_777@yahoo.com

    Hoping To Hear From You

    Yours Blessing

  2. I am actually, though I'm rather outnumbered it's been fun. Yes. I would. If you're referring to Isaiah 40:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2040:22&version=NIV) then the Hebrew word for circle (chûg) could also be translated sphere or arch. The Ancient Greeks (whose philosophy the early church would have been familiar with) believed the earth to be a ball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Classical_Greece). A number of other passages in the Bible suggest Hebrews believed it to have some kind of 3D shape (rather than being on a flat plane or disc). Other, non-Biblical sources dating from the same time period would also have people living for many hundreds of years (the Sumerian King List, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List) I don't know how reliable it is, but scientifically, the exact process of aging isn't something many people are certain on, and there's certainly no direct evidence which says it would be completely impossible for long life-spans. As I said, my opinion is based primarily on faith (which is, as Laurinaohtar rightly stated, the whole point of faith). The argument that God chose to allow the Big Bang and evolution and all that stuff to occur, then lied about it in writing the Bible completely defeats itself and contradicts everything else that Christians believe about God's character, so I reject it firstly on theological grounds, regardless of scientific "evidence". But really, it could just be the case that everyone's interpreting the single set of evidence we have wrongly. And thanks for starting this discussion, I think it has been successful and I think I understand a bit better what you guys believe, and what I believe. So, all in all, it's been fun.
  3. (emphasis mine) Evolution was proposed in 1837 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin#Inception_of_Darwin.27s_evolutionary_theory), not thousands of years ago, so any observations relating to it can only have begun in 1837. Otherwise, you make a fair point. True, but therefore you could also not claim that it is fact until it has been observed, by your reasoning. Fair point. I stand corrected. Again, I agree, but when you relate this specifically to evolution (or, for that matter, events such as the Big Bang) you encounter trouble, because evolution is not easily repeatable. You can't throw some chemicals together in a soup and wait a million years (or however long) for complex life to emerge and repeat, it's only happened once, so we only really have one set of observations (not particularly articulate, sorry). I agree, and I would definitely rather science and religion were left completely separate, though some people from different scientific backgrounds (i.e. scientists and non-scientists) and people from different religious backgrounds (i.e. atheists, religious people and agnostics) would disagree. For the record, I personally prioritize (sp?) my religion over science when it comes to forming opinions on things - if "science" says one thing and my faith says something which is directly at odds with it, I'll side with faith. If science tells me something which isn't mentioned at all in the Bible (lets say, the structure of the atom, which pretty much everyone agrees upon), I'll believe it, and if religion tells me something which has nothing to do with science (morality, ethics, what's right and whats wrong) I'll believe that too. I'm not saying I expect everyone to do that, or that it's the right thing to do, but that's just me...
  4. You can't put them in house chests. I guess it has to be shared storage.
  5. You claim to know how the earth was "truly formed", and I have a question for you. Was anyone there to observe it first hand? Let's take an example from history, the Battle of Gaugamela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela). None of us here were alive when this battle took place, so none of us observed it first hand. How do we know the battle took place? Because of archaeological evidence at the site of the battle (corpses, discarded weapons etc), but the archaeology tells us little about what actually happened in the battle, and it can be interpreted in a number of different ways, by different people with different starting assumptions (if you start with the assumption that Macedon won the battle, you'd probably reach a different conclusion compared with if you assumed that Persia won) All of our knowledge is based on eye witness accounts, which we accept as true, although we could just as easily invent another theory which completely disagrees with these accounts of how Gaugamela actually happened, but most historians would say that that would be a ridiculous thing to do (even though all of the eye witnesses were from one side of the battle (Macedon), and none from the other side (Persia)). The point is, we're forced to trust eye-witnesses, because none of us were there to see it first hand. Same thing applies with creation. No humans were there to observe it, but God was. Lucky for us, God decided to write down (in Genesis) His eye-witness account of what happened. Sure, it's a bit of a one-sided account, but its the only eye-witness account there is, and the physical evidence can be interpreted either way...
  6. The thing about evolution is that, in terms of one species "evolving" into another, it's never been directly observed by humans. Sure, things adapt to suit their environment, or humans can selectively breed animals with certain characteristics, but they remain the same animal (obvious example, all domesticated dogs are the same species). The only direct evidence we have is from the fossil record, which can be interpreted in a number of different ways. I have no objections to teaching evolution in schools (and by parents), but it should be taught as what it is, a theory, not a fact, as it hasn't been directly observed. And since it is a theory, it should be taught alongside other theories (such as biblical-creationism), so that children, from whatever age, can weigh up the arguments from both sides and make an informed decision. Only being presented with one side of the argument is unfair, regardless of which side it is. Natural selection, as a part of the evolutionary process, is also an interesting topic, because in all the instances where we have observed natural selection, it has resulted in the gene pool of a species becoming narrower (less diverse), whereas evolutionary theory would have us expecting gene pools to be becoming continually wider (more diverse) as genes mutate more and more. To give an example, the bacterium S.aureus "evolved" has a number of different strains, one of which is resistant to the drug Methicilin (sorry if this is spelled wrongly) (this strain is known as MRSA). As natural selection continues, all the S.aureus which aren't resistant die, so eventually, the entire species would just be the ones with the Methicilin-resistance gene, so there species as a whole would be less diverse, not more diverse, and it would certainly not go towards the point of diverging into two different species. (Read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staphylococcus_aureus) Carbon-dating (and other forms of radiometric dating) rely on a number of assumptions to get to any actual results (notably- the rate of decay, the amount of isotope originally present in the sample, and that fact that there has been no contamination of the sample- these are all assumed) so if there is even a small flaw in one of these assumptions (which there could be, but not necessarily), then the dates that have been assigned to things will be way off. However, I agree with Laurinaohtar to a large extent, evidence for or against evolution is really pretty much irrelevant to religion. It's perfectly possible to be a devoted Christian (or any other religion) and believe in evolution or whatever, because they're two completely separate fields of thought. Science and religion aren't at odds because they aren't really related to each other. Pure science doesn't attempt to overrule religion, nor does pure religion attempt to throw science out the window. Sadly, people have let their religious beliefs (whether they are theistic or atheistic) get in the way. Just as an aside, in UK schools, evolution is taught as fact.
  7. Wow, this is really very good news! Hopefully they'll do the same with other things like Skirmish marks, that'd make grinding much less of a grind...
  8. Yes it does seem a bit strange that they're consolidating all the others (resistances, crits, mitigations) but leaving offense separate (although they'll all advance the same amount?), although it does kind of make sense because there'll be skills/buffs/whatever that only buff certain offenses (like Cappy banners etc)
  9. I would probably favor melee defence rating (or tactical defence rating for certain fights) over b/p/e because its a guaranteed reduction in damage and, as far as I am aware, it's impossible to cap the defence ratings (at the moment). Haven't really tried out any vastly different builds to test defence against b/p/e, but definitely in overpower soloing its worth stacking up melee defence. I think threat stance is still broken, or at least isn't properly explained in the tool-tip, but its useful as a threat-grabbing skill in the middle of a fight - just toggle threat stance, build up a bit of threat from block responses, then go back to block stance. Also, I know I probably should know this by now, but are block/parry response skills opened by partial blocks/ partial parries? Because if so it would be more worthwhile increasing ratings above the 15% cap.
  10. I'm not sure if the ratings simply add up, like block+parry+evade = total chance of avoiding an attack, it's probably more complicated than that... Personally, I would take block over parry for grouping (for Litany, Shield-Taunt and Shield-smash) and for soloing (Catch a Breath) which are all more useful than the parrying skills (except possibly TTK, in groups, if you're lucky). Also remember that Guardian's Ward (with longer duration legacy if you want) increases your block and parry ratings, not overall b/p chance, so if your block rating gives you 15% block chance unbuffed, than Guardian's Ward won't be giving you any advantage to block chance. I'd aim for getting block and parry to around 12.5%, then keep Guardian's Ward on the entire time you're in combat to take both of them up to 15%. Of course, increasing your block rating beyond 15% increases your partial-block chance, but i'm not sure how useful partial-blocking is.
  11. I'm pretty sure it's safe in that respect, but yeah, that's a fair point. Thanks. You can also see (if you go to the "beta" site) that it doesn't have this stuff at the bottom: which is at the bottom of every page on the official site.
  12. I came across this website today: http://guildwars2beta.com/ offering keys to the closed beta, if you take part in a survey. I just thought I'd warn you guys that it's a scam. There is no guild wars 2 beta, yet... and the only place you'd be able to sign up for it would be http://www.guildwars2.com/
  13. Can't you just pay for ROI in dollars (using credit card or whatever) and let your bank exchange it at the current exchange rate? The fact that they exchange rates are different for different services is because everything is rounded to £9.99 or £29.99 etc, rather than charging £27.62 for something, it looks neater.
  14. Can't say that I have, to be honest, in skirmishes, keeping aggro from my soldier has never been a problem (I do very few group skirms), but I did find Halls of Night to be quite a hard instance to tank, although I believe it has a mechanic in it (mobs of a certain colour naturally aggro towards players of that colour) to make it that way.
  15. have only played Halls of Night so far, did it solo L40 on guardian and with a kinmate a couple of times, it was interesting to see that we only ever got marks from Terror's chest, not the main boss chest. Tried it L65 T2 (in a group, of course), and didn't quite get Nightmare down (managed the other two after numerous wipes and two trips out to repair), probably would have been do-able on T1, but overall, quite a fun instance.
  • Create New...