 | | In the interest of full disclosure...
|
|
My views about creationism should at this point be fairly well established, but I came across this piece in the local paper today. (URL) Pittsburgh Post Gazette isn't exactly a rigorous scientific journal, so the inclusion of this article shouldn't (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Yea, what a game... What I'd like to see is ICE re-release Riddle of the Ring. It was a nice game, and one of the few games I have ever seen which played well for 3 players (too many 3 player games consist of 2 of the players ganging up and (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Fellowship of the Ring - Christmas 2001 The Two Towers - Christmas 2002 Return of the King - Christmas 2003 *sigh* Have to wait 3 years to see them all. ARGH! In any case, I'm sure we'll see plenty of merchandise, but LEGO sets would be darn (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Err bad news.. from what I read quote The Lord of the Rings game will follow along the lines of the popular(sic) warhammer fantasy battle series unquote (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Yes. (...) As long as it's not anything like "Fellowship of the Ring" by Iron Crown Enterprises. "So, the Fellowship player wins if he makes it to here by turn 11, but if he hasn't been to Rivendell by Turn 6 he has to make it over here to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) That's an excellent point-by-point clearinghouse (with some cross-links to the talk.origins site I posted, as well). Thanks for posting it, Ross. (...) article is the singularly most unflattering "official" photograph ever taken of a person? (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Well, there ought to be a lot of cool "wizardy" stuff...I expect potions, cauldrons, owls (hopefully they won't use the same bird piece they use for falcons and parrots), maybe a rat (is Scabbers in the first book?), castle walls, probably (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) I dont think lego are bothered with minifig size. look at the Star Wars anakin v's chewbacca, about 3 foot difference - both the same size minifig. The minifig has been around 20 odd years and hasnt changed. I do agree that the Harry Potter (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) Oh well I'd have to see what they came up with first... (...) The enviroment will shift to a magical castle enviroment once you read on... (...) That would indeed be a very cool product line, lots of possibilities. I have my doubts about the (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
(...) I suspect that minifig proportions are actually correct for Hobbits and wrong for most others! Jennifer Clark (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 2002 Lord of the Rings Lego line?
|
|
Is it just me? I just cant seem to get excited over the imminent Harry Potter line. O.k I have only read 50 pages of the first book, but it all seemed to be based in a modern day town environment with characters who wouldn't translate well into (...) (24 years ago, 8-Feb-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) And here's a couple of late-breaking stories which seem to contradict the idea of a "young world": (URL) I havent investigated these at all... (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apples and oranges
|
|
(...) Of course the immediate question I raise about his research is what is the transmission spectra for carbon?... Still the article has a very good point. There are plenty of ways you can compare apples and organges on. (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Just a note: Trilobites as a group aren't gone after the Devonian. They take a major hit in the Devonian extinctions, but have a minor comeback, surviving until the Permian. However, that means it's a great example of evolution, extinction, (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) What have I denied or claimed inapplicable? I've been presented only with some specialized snippets which I've ignored because they're based upon more foundational things which I'm asking for evidence about. Why is it (seemingly) such a (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) For the 39th time. The fossil record seems to indicate that species appear, then disappear. Take trilobites, for example. Older ones are not as specially diverse as later ones. But after the Devonian extinction, they're all gone. Where did (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) So therefore chromosomal change never happens? Is that the point? (...) Maybe. Seals seem to do okay though. (...) Could be an okay fin and a really ordinary leg first. Ever heard of lungfish? (...) If there wasn't anything else on land to eat (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
|
(...) Welcome back Tim. Would you mind having a look at an earlier post of mine, questioning your basic assumptions? (URL) rather than getting bogged down again (in different interpretations of observed phenomena), could we examine the premises of (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
|
(...) Good point - Lack of common definitions is often a problem with these types of discussions. I'll admit right away that I'm not the one to do the defining - I chose Physics over Biology. Archeology isn't my area either, which is part of why I'm (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Apples and oranges
|
|
Hmmm ... I wonder if he really followed through there. What he did was compare the transmission spectra of the resulting dried products. Now what does he get if he does a nutrition test on the apple and the orange? :-) -- Cheers ... Geoffrey Hyde (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
