LittleBigPlanet 3 heading to PS3 as well

#201 Edited by B4X (4799 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib: There is zero DNA strand evidence to link Humans to Apes. The is zero linking properties to support the jump from ape to man.

If there were it would be a fact. Not a scientific theory.

If you can diffuse this. TRY, like the millions of scientists before that couldn't get past the theory phase of the equation.

It can not be proven with out the linking DNA strand. Science itself has proven the jump from ape to man can not happen. With out this very evidence.

You're up?

You do realize that a scientific theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, right?

also humans and apes share like 99% of their DNA, and then there is the whole chromosome 2 thing, which shows chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes that are nearly identical in apes

You do realize that doctors and Scientist are Practicing medicine and theories. They put their ideas out there to be challenged and built upon?

Just 2 chromosomes? Is that all? Are you stupid? There are elements with less deference's in their molecular structure that make them polar opposites. You're talking genetics? Really?

That would mean that a male and female ape at the same time would have to have the exact same genetic deformity. Then reproduce and start an entire race of humans.

You're not going to try and sit in here and say 2 chromosomes is nothing? Are you?

My god just stop. I have to eat.

Peace

#202 Edited by CrownKingArthur (4813 posts) -
@b4x said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

how is that an argument to become religious? if anything you're merely describing technological progression. cars don't kill people. a lack of vigilance when operating a motor vehicle kills people (generalising).

check out what the bibbel says about curing leprosy. it's leviticus 14 if i'm not mistaken.

and i don't know if pennicilin is as good as the habar process, or the transistor.

Should a great invention even put a human life at risk? Ever?

If something even has a remote chance of killing you, how can it be a good invention?

Even when human error comes into play? You would never be at risk of death, if it was a good invention?

some inventions kill humans deliberately, like guns.

the car has a remote chance of killing me, however when used responsibly by a trained operater it's beneficial and utilitarian.

i am constantly at risk of death because i am alive.

#203 Posted by lostrib (37047 posts) -

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib: There is zero DNA strand evidence to link Humans to Apes. The is zero linking properties to support the jump from ape to man.

If there were it would be a fact. Not a scientific theory.

If you can diffuse this. TRY, like the millions of scientists before that couldn't get past the theory phase of the equation.

It can not be proven with out the linking DNA strand. Science itself has proven the jump from ape to man can not happen. With out this very evidence.

You're up?

You do realize that a scientific theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, right?

also humans and apes share like 99% of their DNA, and then there is the whole chromosome 2 thing, which shows chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes that are nearly identical in apes

You do realize that doctors and Scientist are Practicing medicine and theories. They out their ideas out there to be challenged and built upon?

Just 2 chromosomes? Is that all? Are you stupid? There are elements with less deference's in their molecular structure that make them polar opposites. You're talking genetics? Really?

That would mean that a male and female ape at the same time would have to have the exact same genetic deformity. Then reproduce and start an entire race of humans.

You're not going to try and sit in here and say 2 chromosomes is nothing? Are you?

My god just stop. I have to eat.

Peace

are you just throwing together random science terms and hoping no one knows enough to point out you're full of shit?

you're surprised I'm talking genetics in a discussion about evolution?

#204 Edited by marinko123 (414 posts) -

@b4x said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

how is that an argument to become religious? if anything you're merely describing technological progression. cars don't kill people. a lack of vigilance when operating a motor vehicle kills people (generalising).

check out what the bibbel says about curing leprosy. it's leviticus 14 if i'm not mistaken.

and i don't know if pennicilin is as good as the habar process, or the transistor.

Should a great invention even put a human life at risk? Ever?

If something even has a remote chance of killing you, how can it be a good invention?

Even when human error comes into play? You would never be at risk of death, if it was a good invention?

By this logic, we shouldn't have electricity or be using fire, gas, etc.

LEL

#205 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (7177 posts) -

@TheEroica: you took the words out of my mouth about sealing Sony at last place for E3. Another shot that misfired for Sony.

#206 Edited by B4X (4799 posts) -

@marinko123 said:

@b4x said:

@CrownKingArthur said:

how is that an argument to become religious? if anything you're merely describing technological progression. cars don't kill people. a lack of vigilance when operating a motor vehicle kills people (generalising).

check out what the bibbel says about curing leprosy. it's leviticus 14 if i'm not mistaken.

and i don't know if pennicilin is as good as the habar process, or the transistor.

Should a great invention even put a human life at risk? Ever?

If something even has a remote chance of killing you, how can it be a good invention?

Even when human error comes into play? You would never be at risk of death, if it was a good invention?

By this logic, we shouldn't have electricity or be using fire, gas, etc.

LEL

No we should have clean 100% renewable energy. That is NOT carbon based.

A better way to capture wind, water, and solar energies. Not the band-aids we have in place now.

A new undiscovered energy. That is 100% self sufficient renewing energy. To 100% replace carbon base energy.

This WILL be discovered one day. Probably by accident .

#207 Posted by Batt1eRatt1e (108 posts) -

What the hell happened here? It went from PS2 Toy Story graphics to the craziest shit I ever seen on this site. Maybe the PS4 will one day have Cars 2 graphics.

#208 Edited by darkspineslayer (19713 posts) -

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib: There is zero DNA strand evidence to link Humans to Apes. The is zero linking properties to support the jump from ape to man.

If there were it would be a fact. Not a scientific theory.

If you can diffuse this. TRY, like the millions of scientists before that couldn't get past the theory phase of the equation.

It can not be proven with out the linking DNA strand. Science itself has proven the jump from ape to man can not happen. With out this very evidence.

You're up?

You do realize that a scientific theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, right?

also humans and apes share like 99% of their DNA, and then there is the whole chromosome 2 thing, which shows chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes that are nearly identical in apes

You do realize that doctors and Scientist are Practicing medicine and theories. They put their ideas out there to be challenged and built upon?

Just 2 chromosomes? Is that all? Are you stupid? There are elements with less deference's in their molecular structure that make them polar opposites. You're talking genetics? Really?

That would mean that a male and female ape at the same time would have to have the exact same genetic deformity. Then reproduce and start an entire race of humans.

You're not going to try and sit in here and say 2 chromosomes is nothing? Are you?

My god just stop. I have to eat.

Peace

This much ignorance....i can't believe it exists...

#209 Edited by B4X (4799 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib: There is zero DNA strand evidence to link Humans to Apes. The is zero linking properties to support the jump from ape to man.

If there were it would be a fact. Not a scientific theory.

If you can diffuse this. TRY, like the millions of scientists before that couldn't get past the theory phase of the equation.

It can not be proven with out the linking DNA strand. Science itself has proven the jump from ape to man can not happen. With out this very evidence.

You're up?

You do realize that a scientific theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, right?

also humans and apes share like 99% of their DNA, and then there is the whole chromosome 2 thing, which shows chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes that are nearly identical in apes

You do realize that doctors and Scientist are Practicing medicine and theories. They out their ideas out there to be challenged and built upon?

Just 2 chromosomes? Is that all? Are you stupid? There are elements with less deference's in their molecular structure that make them polar opposites. You're talking genetics? Really?

That would mean that a male and female ape at the same time would have to have the exact same genetic deformity. Then reproduce and start an entire race of humans.

You're not going to try and sit in here and say 2 chromosomes is nothing? Are you?

My god just stop. I have to eat.

Peace

are you just throwing together random science terms and hoping no one knows enough to point out you're full of shit?

you're surprised I'm talking genetics in a discussion about evolution?

Surprised? No just misused theories, in your world of theories, that support your theories, about your theories.. That equal 1 thing, uneducated guesses.

You know why they're uneducated guesses? We're stupid as a race. Our smartest men are DUMB compared to men 300 years from now. They would rather sit around talking shit. Than actually putting a theory in practice. A bunch of know it all's who don't know shit about anything.

They just like to compare with fellow colleges who somehow have this delusion they're actually intelligent. Pumping out that massive 8% of brain power, they love to flex. Then have another guy come along and try to one up him with his line of bull-shit theories. Till some lucky basterd, finally finds the REAL answer.

We are 100% uneducated as a race. The day we STOP learning the TRUE answers, is the day we're doomed as a race.

You theory monger all you want guy. I'll continue to know I have no clue as to what the fuck is going on in this life, and know for a FACT I do not know everything.

Instead of pretending to know something by spouting off BS guesses.

peace

#210 Posted by B4X (4799 posts) -

@darkspineslayer said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib: There is zero DNA strand evidence to link Humans to Apes. The is zero linking properties to support the jump from ape to man.

If there were it would be a fact. Not a scientific theory.

If you can diffuse this. TRY, like the millions of scientists before that couldn't get past the theory phase of the equation.

It can not be proven with out the linking DNA strand. Science itself has proven the jump from ape to man can not happen. With out this very evidence.

You're up?

You do realize that a scientific theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, right?

also humans and apes share like 99% of their DNA, and then there is the whole chromosome 2 thing, which shows chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes that are nearly identical in apes

You do realize that doctors and Scientist are Practicing medicine and theories. They put their ideas out there to be challenged and built upon?

Just 2 chromosomes? Is that all? Are you stupid? There are elements with less deference's in their molecular structure that make them polar opposites. You're talking genetics? Really?

That would mean that a male and female ape at the same time would have to have the exact same genetic deformity. Then reproduce and start an entire race of humans.

You're not going to try and sit in here and say 2 chromosomes is nothing? Are you?

My god just stop. I have to eat.

Peace

This much ignorance....i can't believe it exists...

Show my ignorance.

#211 Posted by marinko123 (414 posts) -

@b4x said:

No we should have clean 100% renewable energy. That is NOT carbon based.

A better way to capture wind, water, and solar energies. Not the band-aids we have in place now.

A new undiscovered energy. That is 100% self sufficient renewing energy. To 100% replace carbon base energy.

This WILL be discovered one day. Probably by accident .

But we would still be using electricity to power stuff and electricity can kill. I dunno, I just found your comment about cars ridiculous. Of course they can kill. There's lots of inventions that can kill, doesn't make them bad. We all gotta go some way.

#212 Posted by B4X (4799 posts) -

@marinko123 said:

@b4x said:

No we should have clean 100% renewable energy. That is NOT carbon based.

A better way to capture wind, water, and solar energies. Not the band-aids we have in place now.

A new undiscovered energy. That is 100% self sufficient renewing energy. To 100% replace carbon base energy.

This WILL be discovered one day. Probably by accident .

But we would still be using electricity to power stuff and electricity can kill. I dunno, I just found your comment about cars ridiculous. Of course they can kill. There's lots of inventions that can kill, doesn't make them bad. We all gotta go some way.

The question you should ask. Is should they kill?

#213 Edited by darkspineslayer (19713 posts) -
@b4x said:

@darkspineslayer said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib: There is zero DNA strand evidence to link Humans to Apes. The is zero linking properties to support the jump from ape to man.

If there were it would be a fact. Not a scientific theory.

If you can diffuse this. TRY, like the millions of scientists before that couldn't get past the theory phase of the equation.

It can not be proven with out the linking DNA strand. Science itself has proven the jump from ape to man can not happen. With out this very evidence.

You're up?

You do realize that a scientific theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, right?

also humans and apes share like 99% of their DNA, and then there is the whole chromosome 2 thing, which shows chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes that are nearly identical in apes

You do realize that doctors and Scientist are Practicing medicine and theories. They put their ideas out there to be challenged and built upon?

Just 2 chromosomes? Is that all? Are you stupid? There are elements with less deference's in their molecular structure that make them polar opposites. You're talking genetics? Really?

That would mean that a male and female ape at the same time would have to have the exact same genetic deformity. Then reproduce and start an entire race of humans.

You're not going to try and sit in here and say 2 chromosomes is nothing? Are you?

My god just stop. I have to eat.

Peace

This much ignorance....i can't believe it exists...

Show my ignorance.

Sure

#214 Posted by santoron (7749 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib: There is zero DNA strand evidence to link Humans to Apes. The is zero linking properties to support the jump from ape to man.

If there were it would be a fact. Not a scientific theory.

If you can diffuse this. TRY, like the millions of scientists before that couldn't get past the theory phase of the equation.

It can not be proven with out the linking DNA strand. Science itself has proven the jump from ape to man can not happen. With out this very evidence.

You're up?

You do realize that a scientific theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, right?

also humans and apes share like 99% of their DNA, and then there is the whole chromosome 2 thing, which shows chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes that are nearly identical in apes

You do realize that doctors and Scientist are Practicing medicine and theories. They out their ideas out there to be challenged and built upon?

Just 2 chromosomes? Is that all? Are you stupid? There are elements with less deference's in their molecular structure that make them polar opposites. You're talking genetics? Really?

That would mean that a male and female ape at the same time would have to have the exact same genetic deformity. Then reproduce and start an entire race of humans.

You're not going to try and sit in here and say 2 chromosomes is nothing? Are you?

My god just stop. I have to eat.

Peace

are you just throwing together random science terms and hoping no one knows enough to point out you're full of shit?

you're surprised I'm talking genetics in a discussion about evolution?

LMAO. You're killing the guy lostrib, though I think just about everyone knows enough to point out he's full of shit on this one.

This guy can't make himself another new alt fast enough. Today's output from him has been the closest this to a pron-free account suicide as I've seen in a couple years.

#215 Posted by Aquat1cF1sh (10892 posts) -

Oh cool, that means I'll get to play it sooner rather than later. Yay!

#216 Edited by inb4uall (5730 posts) -

@santoron said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib: There is zero DNA strand evidence to link Humans to Apes. The is zero linking properties to support the jump from ape to man.

If there were it would be a fact. Not a scientific theory.

If you can diffuse this. TRY, like the millions of scientists before that couldn't get past the theory phase of the equation.

It can not be proven with out the linking DNA strand. Science itself has proven the jump from ape to man can not happen. With out this very evidence.

You're up?

You do realize that a scientific theory is the highest form of scientific knowledge, right?

also humans and apes share like 99% of their DNA, and then there is the whole chromosome 2 thing, which shows chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes that are nearly identical in apes

You do realize that doctors and Scientist are Practicing medicine and theories. They out their ideas out there to be challenged and built upon?

Just 2 chromosomes? Is that all? Are you stupid? There are elements with less deference's in their molecular structure that make them polar opposites. You're talking genetics? Really?

That would mean that a male and female ape at the same time would have to have the exact same genetic deformity. Then reproduce and start an entire race of humans.

You're not going to try and sit in here and say 2 chromosomes is nothing? Are you?

My god just stop. I have to eat.

Peace

are you just throwing together random science terms and hoping no one knows enough to point out you're full of shit?

you're surprised I'm talking genetics in a discussion about evolution?

LMAO. You're killing the guy lostrib, though I think just about everyone knows enough to point out he's full of shit on this one.

This guy can't make himself another new alt fast enough. Today's output from him has been the closest this to a pron-free account suicide as I've seen in a couple years.

Tis glorious.

#217 Posted by Batt1eRatt1e (108 posts) -

Heard LBP3 will have Toy Story Cars Planes Frozen graphics

#218 Posted by nini200 (9805 posts) -

@highking_kallor said:

@nini200:

Well thats a great opinion. Me I cant stand to even turn on my ps3 to play GTA online as it hurts my eyes and head. I didnt think there was much of a jump until I decided to go back to GTA 5. The framerate, it hurts, badly. Think I will stick with PS4 and PC for now. May get an xbone if halo mc edition reviews well.

Indeed it is a great opinion and a wise one at that. There is no reason to get a PS4 if you already have a PS3. The graphics are nice but they are nice on PS3. You need an optometrist then if it hurts your eyes to look at a video game. That lame excuse is terrible logic. My poor eyes hurt when I look at a game that I was just saying looks great before the new gen systems came out. Woe is me, woe is me. There is no reason to get a PS4 yet and your poor eyes does not justify a $400 console to play 3 exclusives.

#219 Posted by lostrib (37047 posts) -

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

You do realize that doctors and Scientist are Practicing medicine and theories. They out their ideas out there to be challenged and built upon?

Just 2 chromosomes? Is that all? Are you stupid? There are elements with less deference's in their molecular structure that make them polar opposites. You're talking genetics? Really?

That would mean that a male and female ape at the same time would have to have the exact same genetic deformity. Then reproduce and start an entire race of humans.

You're not going to try and sit in here and say 2 chromosomes is nothing? Are you?

My god just stop. I have to eat.

Peace

are you just throwing together random science terms and hoping no one knows enough to point out you're full of shit?

you're surprised I'm talking genetics in a discussion about evolution?

Surprised? No just misused theories, in your world of theories, that support your theories, about your theories.. That equal 1 thing, uneducated guesses.

You know why they're uneducated guesses? We're stupid as a race. Our smartest men are DUMB compared to men 300 years from now. They would rather sit around talking shit. Than actually putting a theory in practice. A bunch of know it all's who don't know shit about anything.

They just like to compare with fellow colleges who somehow have this delusion they're actually intelligent. Pumping out that massive 8% of brain power, they love to flex. Then have another guy come along and try to one up him with his line of bull-shit theories. Till some lucky basterd, finally finds the REAL answer.

We are 100% uneducated as a race. The day we STOP learning the TRUE answers, is the day we're doomed as a race.

You theory monger all you want guy. I'll continue to know I have no clue as to what the fuck is going on in this life, and know for a FACT I do not know everything.

Instead of pretending to know something by spouting off BS guesses.

peace

Since you refuse to look it up:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation"

"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)."

#220 Edited by lostrib (37047 posts) -

@darkspineslayer said:
@b4x said:

@darkspineslayer said:

@b4x said:

You do realize that doctors and Scientist are Practicing medicine and theories. They put their ideas out there to be challenged and built upon?

Just 2 chromosomes? Is that all? Are you stupid? There are elements with less deference's in their molecular structure that make them polar opposites. You're talking genetics? Really?

That would mean that a male and female ape at the same time would have to have the exact same genetic deformity. Then reproduce and start an entire race of humans.

You're not going to try and sit in here and say 2 chromosomes is nothing? Are you?

My god just stop. I have to eat.

Peace

This much ignorance....i can't believe it exists...

Show my ignorance.

Sure

#221 Edited by chessmaster1989 (29314 posts) -
@inb4uall said:
@chessmaster1989 said:
@inb4uall said:

Back on topic, LBP 3 counts as a game on Ps3 and Ps4. It is a multiplat, not an exclusive though. It just happens to not be on anything besides Ps4 or PS3. Deal with it.

Why would you define exclusives according to specific systems as opposed to system groups (Playstation, Xbox, PC, etc)? Seems stupid

Because we are arguing which system is better not which brand or ecosystem. We judge each system based on it's own merits. Having a game only on that one system. Obviously if it is on other systems it loses value (specifically within the context of this discussion). In the real world it's great that you don't have to buy a PS4 or a xbone when their libraries are crap right now.

But if you're arguing about what specific system is better, you're arguing within a generation, so the cross-gen doesn't matter so much there.

And it seems weird to condition on owning a previous-gen console.

#222 Posted by GreySeal9 (24360 posts) -

lol at the B4X meltdown in this thread.

#223 Posted by lostrib (37047 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

lol at the B4X meltdown in this thread.

seems to be how he is in every thread

#224 Edited by chessmaster1989 (29314 posts) -
@GreySeal9 said:

lol at the B4X meltdown in this thread.

Thought for a second I'd accidentally clicked on an OT thread

Dear God the stupidity

#225 Posted by inb4uall (5730 posts) -

@chessmaster1989 said:
@inb4uall said:
@chessmaster1989 said:
@inb4uall said:

Back on topic, LBP 3 counts as a game on Ps3 and Ps4. It is a multiplat, not an exclusive though. It just happens to not be on anything besides Ps4 or PS3. Deal with it.

Why would you define exclusives according to specific systems as opposed to system groups (Playstation, Xbox, PC, etc)? Seems stupid

Because we are arguing which system is better not which brand or ecosystem. We judge each system based on it's own merits. Having a game only on that one system. Obviously if it is on other systems it loses value (specifically within the context of this discussion). In the real world it's great that you don't have to buy a PS4 or a xbone when their libraries are crap right now.

But if you're arguing about what specific system is better, you're arguing within a generation, so the cross-gen doesn't matter so much there.

And it seems weird to condition on owning a previous-gen console.

I'm just explaining the rules to the best of my ability. I didn't make them lol.

#226 Posted by CrownKingArthur (4813 posts) -

mother of atheismo. what a thread.

#227 Posted by PhazonBlazer (11862 posts) -

I'm confused, are we comparing Sony to God?

#228 Edited by darkspineslayer (19713 posts) -

@PhazonBlazer said:

I'm confused, are we comparing Sony to God?

No. Sony is obviously above God.

#229 Posted by highking_kallor (524 posts) -

@nini200: haha so sweet

#230 Posted by PsychoLemons (2103 posts) -

Didn't like the sequel, I'll skip it.

#231 Edited by MBirdy88 (8247 posts) -

@TheEroica said:

Just further cementing Sonys last place finish at e3 this year even further.

The sequel no one wanted now in multiplat!

what? little big planet was quite a big deal :S

oh wait, I forgot where I am... a place where 10 hour shooters with cutscenes is "what everyone wants".

#232 Posted by CyberLips (1824 posts) -

@Blabadon: So you're an idiot?

#233 Edited by Blabadon (26359 posts) -

@CyberLips: Reported

#234 Edited by CyberLips (1824 posts) -

@Blabadon said:

@CyberLips: Reported

You're pathetic.

#235 Posted by LadyBlue (3928 posts) -

@CyberLips said:

You're pathetic.

Don't feed it.

#236 Posted by B4X (4799 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

You do realize that doctors and Scientist are Practicing medicine and theories. They out their ideas out there to be challenged and built upon?

Just 2 chromosomes? Is that all? Are you stupid? There are elements with less deference's in their molecular structure that make them polar opposites. You're talking genetics? Really?

That would mean that a male and female ape at the same time would have to have the exact same genetic deformity. Then reproduce and start an entire race of humans.

You're not going to try and sit in here and say 2 chromosomes is nothing? Are you?

My god just stop. I have to eat.

Peace

are you just throwing together random science terms and hoping no one knows enough to point out you're full of shit?

you're surprised I'm talking genetics in a discussion about evolution?

Surprised? No just misused theories, in your world of theories, that support your theories, about your theories.. That equal 1 thing, uneducated guesses.

You know why they're uneducated guesses? We're stupid as a race. Our smartest men are DUMB compared to men 300 years from now. They would rather sit around talking shit. Than actually putting a theory in practice. A bunch of know it all's who don't know shit about anything.

They just like to compare with fellow colleges who somehow have this delusion they're actually intelligent. Pumping out that massive 8% of brain power, they love to flex. Then have another guy come along and try to one up him with his line of bull-shit theories. Till some lucky basterd, finally finds the REAL answer.

We are 100% uneducated as a race. The day we STOP learning the TRUE answers, is the day we're doomed as a race.

You theory monger all you want guy. I'll continue to know I have no clue as to what the fuck is going on in this life, and know for a FACT I do not know everything.

Instead of pretending to know something by spouting off BS guesses.

peace

Since you refuse to look it up:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation"

"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)."

Darwin himself recognized in "On the Origin of Species" that his theory had many difficulties. He listed four objections that he recognized, if not resolved, would be fatal to his theory. They were:

The lack of transitional forms.

The incredible complexity of such organs as the eye.

The development of instincts in animals.

The sterility of crossbreeding in animals.

These same objections have yet to be addressed satisfactorily. Darwin said, "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." As the world celebrates Darwin's 204th birthday today and the 154th anniversary of "On the Origin of Species," his theory still remains riddled with holes large enough to foster major doubts in his claims.

Transitional forms, also referred to as "missing links," which if not found, would be the undoing of Darwin's theory, are still missing. Evolutionists try to put the blame on the scarcity of evidence mainly because of the general difficulty in finding fossils. There are billions of fossils of complex invertebrates and fossil fish of more than 250,000 different species unearthed, but not a single missing link among them.

Darwin toyed with the idea of the transmutation of species, and added the concept of nature selecting certain desirable traits and passing those on to future generations. In July 1837, Darwin scrawled "I think" in his book, above his famed evolutionary tree.

Although the theory of natural selection was widely believed for many years to be the greatest organizing principle in biology, it failed to provide an explanation for the origin of species.

Many other problems with the theory have also arisen. Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer, a basic requirement to be science. A process that has never been observed to occur, in all human history, should not be called scientific.

#237 Edited by B4X (4799 posts) -

@lostrib:

"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist)."

"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).

"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).

"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science).

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).

"I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).

"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).

"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).

To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree...." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22)

"The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the 'trade secret' of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagrams) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)

#238 Posted by lostrib (37047 posts) -

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

You do realize that doctors and Scientist are Practicing medicine and theories. They out their ideas out there to be challenged and built upon?

Just 2 chromosomes? Is that all? Are you stupid? There are elements with less deference's in their molecular structure that make them polar opposites. You're talking genetics? Really?

That would mean that a male and female ape at the same time would have to have the exact same genetic deformity. Then reproduce and start an entire race of humans.

You're not going to try and sit in here and say 2 chromosomes is nothing? Are you?

My god just stop. I have to eat.

Peace

are you just throwing together random science terms and hoping no one knows enough to point out you're full of shit?

you're surprised I'm talking genetics in a discussion about evolution?

Surprised? No just misused theories, in your world of theories, that support your theories, about your theories.. That equal 1 thing, uneducated guesses.

You know why they're uneducated guesses? We're stupid as a race. Our smartest men are DUMB compared to men 300 years from now. They would rather sit around talking shit. Than actually putting a theory in practice. A bunch of know it all's who don't know shit about anything.

They just like to compare with fellow colleges who somehow have this delusion they're actually intelligent. Pumping out that massive 8% of brain power, they love to flex. Then have another guy come along and try to one up him with his line of bull-shit theories. Till some lucky basterd, finally finds the REAL answer.

We are 100% uneducated as a race. The day we STOP learning the TRUE answers, is the day we're doomed as a race.

You theory monger all you want guy. I'll continue to know I have no clue as to what the fuck is going on in this life, and know for a FACT I do not know everything.

Instead of pretending to know something by spouting off BS guesses.

peace

Since you refuse to look it up:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation"

"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)."

Darwin himself recognized in "On the Origin of Species" that his theory had many difficulties. He listed four objections that he recognized, if not resolved, would be fatal to his theory. They were:

The lack of transitional forms.

The incredible complexity of such organs as the eye.

The development of instincts in animals.

The sterility of crossbreeding in animals.

These same objections have yet to be addressed satisfactorily. Darwin said, "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." As the world celebrates Darwin's 204th birthday today and the 154th anniversary of "On the Origin of Species," his theory still remains riddled with holes large enough to foster major doubts in his claims.

Transitional forms, also referred to as "missing links," which if not found, would be the undoing of Darwin's theory, are still missing. Evolutionists try to put the blame on the scarcity of evidence mainly because of the general difficulty in finding fossils. There are billions of fossils of complex invertebrates and fossil fish of more than 250,000 different species unearthed, but not a single missing link among them.

Darwin toyed with the idea of the transmutation of species, and added the concept of nature selecting certain desirable traits and passing those on to future generations. In July 1837, Darwin scrawled "I think" in his book, above his famed evolutionary tree.

Although the theory of natural selection was widely believed for many years to be the greatest organizing principle in biology, it failed to provide an explanation for the origin of species.

Many other problems with the theory have also arisen. Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer, a basic requirement to be science. A process that has never been observed to occur, in all human history, should not be called scientific.

You should probably give an actual source. But this just sounds like some random personas opinion

Also, there are actually a number of transitional fossils. In addition, DNA sequences and homologous proteins are ways of determining evolutionary relationship between species, something that was unavailable to Darwin.

And actually the process of natural selection and adaptation can be observed

#239 Posted by lostrib (37047 posts) -

@b4x said:

@lostrib:

"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation" (Gary Parker, Ph.D., biologist/paleontologist and former evolutionist)."

"most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true" (Dr. David Raup, curator of geology, Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago).

"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).

"The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools.Clearly some refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated: if only they had the evidence..." (William R. Fix, The Bone Pedlars, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1984, p. 150).

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places" (Francis Hitching, archaeologist).

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply" (J. O'Rourke in the American Journal of Science).

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation" (Dr. Gary Parker, biologist/paleontologist and former ardent evolutionist).

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them" (David Kitts, paleontologist and evolutionist).

"I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed and a palm tree have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition" (Dr. Eldred Corner, professor of botany at Cambridge University, England: Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961, p. 97).

"So firmly does the modern geologist believe in evolution up from simple organisms to complex ones over huge time spans, that he is perfectly willing to use the theory of evolution to prove the theory of evolution [p.128]one is applying the theory of evolution to prove the correctness of evolution. For we are assuming that the oldest formations contain only the most primitive and least complex organisms, which is the base assumption of Darwinism [p.127]. If we now assume that only simple organisms will occur in old formations, we are assuming the basic premise of Darwinism to be correct. To use, therefore, for dating purposes, the assumption that only simple organisms will be present in old formations is to thoroughly beg the whole question. It is arguing in a circle [p.128]" Arthur E Wilder-Smith, Man's Origin, Man's Destiny, Harold Shaw Publishers, 1968, pp. 127,128).

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of the organisms they contain" (R. H. Rastall, lecturer in economic geology, Cambridge University: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, Chicago: William Benton, Publisher, 1956, p. 168).

"I admit that an awful lot of that [fantasy] has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs [in the American Museum of Natural History] is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared fifty years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now, I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we have a problem" (Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist and evolutionist).

To the above fact, even the most world renown (evolutionary) biologists agree...." New species almost always appear suddenly in the fossil record with NO intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks in the same region. The fossil record with its abrupt transitions OFFERS NO SUPPORT for gradual change". - Stephen J. Gould (Natural History , June, 1977, p.22)

"The extreme rarity (of transitional forms) in the fossil record persists as the 'trade secret' of palentology. The evolutionary tree (diagrams) that adorn our textbooks is.....NOT the evidence of fossils". - Stephen Gould (Natural History, 1977, vol.86, p.13)

you used the same quote twice

#240 Edited by Gue1 (10029 posts) -

lol this thread derailed big time. How the hell did you guys end up talking about religion and evolution in a LBP3 troll thread? XD lololol

#241 Posted by B4X (4799 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

You do realize that doctors and Scientist are Practicing medicine and theories. They out their ideas out there to be challenged and built upon?

Just 2 chromosomes? Is that all? Are you stupid? There are elements with less deference's in their molecular structure that make them polar opposites. You're talking genetics? Really?

That would mean that a male and female ape at the same time would have to have the exact same genetic deformity. Then reproduce and start an entire race of humans.

You're not going to try and sit in here and say 2 chromosomes is nothing? Are you?

My god just stop. I have to eat.

Peace

are you just throwing together random science terms and hoping no one knows enough to point out you're full of shit?

you're surprised I'm talking genetics in a discussion about evolution?

Surprised? No just misused theories, in your world of theories, that support your theories, about your theories.. That equal 1 thing, uneducated guesses.

You know why they're uneducated guesses? We're stupid as a race. Our smartest men are DUMB compared to men 300 years from now. They would rather sit around talking shit. Than actually putting a theory in practice. A bunch of know it all's who don't know shit about anything.

They just like to compare with fellow colleges who somehow have this delusion they're actually intelligent. Pumping out that massive 8% of brain power, they love to flex. Then have another guy come along and try to one up him with his line of bull-shit theories. Till some lucky basterd, finally finds the REAL answer.

We are 100% uneducated as a race. The day we STOP learning the TRUE answers, is the day we're doomed as a race.

You theory monger all you want guy. I'll continue to know I have no clue as to what the fuck is going on in this life, and know for a FACT I do not know everything.

Instead of pretending to know something by spouting off BS guesses.

peace

Since you refuse to look it up:

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation"

"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative)."

Darwin himself recognized in "On the Origin of Species" that his theory had many difficulties. He listed four objections that he recognized, if not resolved, would be fatal to his theory. They were:

The lack of transitional forms.

The incredible complexity of such organs as the eye.

The development of instincts in animals.

The sterility of crossbreeding in animals.

These same objections have yet to be addressed satisfactorily. Darwin said, "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." As the world celebrates Darwin's 204th birthday today and the 154th anniversary of "On the Origin of Species," his theory still remains riddled with holes large enough to foster major doubts in his claims.

Transitional forms, also referred to as "missing links," which if not found, would be the undoing of Darwin's theory, are still missing. Evolutionists try to put the blame on the scarcity of evidence mainly because of the general difficulty in finding fossils. There are billions of fossils of complex invertebrates and fossil fish of more than 250,000 different species unearthed, but not a single missing link among them.

Darwin toyed with the idea of the transmutation of species, and added the concept of nature selecting certain desirable traits and passing those on to future generations. In July 1837, Darwin scrawled "I think" in his book, above his famed evolutionary tree.

Although the theory of natural selection was widely believed for many years to be the greatest organizing principle in biology, it failed to provide an explanation for the origin of species.

Many other problems with the theory have also arisen. Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer, a basic requirement to be science. A process that has never been observed to occur, in all human history, should not be called scientific.

You should probably give an actual source. But this just sounds like some random personas opinion

Also, there are actually a number of transitional fossils. In addition, DNA sequences and homologous proteins are ways of determining evolutionary relationship between species, something that was unavailable to Darwin.

And actually the process of natural selection and adaptation can be observed

You can stop trying to pass off a theory as fact to me. It's ok. My next post has several sources.

Santa is real!

You have admitted in this thread that you believe ANYTHING without 100% concrete evidence to the facts.

Let's go back to talking about games. Your fairy tails are annoying me.

#242 Posted by ninjapirate2000 (3035 posts) -

What a fun thread to read.

#243 Edited by lostrib (37047 posts) -

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

You should probably give an actual source. But this just sounds like some random personas opinion

Also, there are actually a number of transitional fossils. In addition, DNA sequences and homologous proteins are ways of determining evolutionary relationship between species, something that was unavailable to Darwin.

And actually the process of natural selection and adaptation can be observed

You can stop trying to pass off a theory as fact to me. It's ok. My next post has several sources.

Santa is real!

You have admitted in this thread that you believe ANYTHING without 100% concrete evidence to the facts.

Let's go back to talking about games. Your fairy tails are annoying me.

It's tales not tails. One is a story, the other is the appendage of an animal.

Also, nice that you have yet to actually address anything said, instead just spouting bullshit rhetoric while throwing together random science terms in hopes that no one will notice

Did you even read what I posted? A scientific theory is the highest level of scientific knowledge, it is completely different from the common use of the word theory.

Seriously, go take a biology course.

#244 Edited by lostrib (37047 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

lol this thread derailed big time. How the hell did you guys end up talking about religion and evolution in a LBP3 troll thread? XD lololol

because B4X is a dumbass

#245 Posted by sam890 (1108 posts) -

Awww man religion debate this is a first.

@b4x There is no God and Evolution is a fact now.

#246 Edited by B4X (4799 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

You should probably give an actual source. But this just sounds like some random personas opinion

Also, there are actually a number of transitional fossils. In addition, DNA sequences and homologous proteins are ways of determining evolutionary relationship between species, something that was unavailable to Darwin.

And actually the process of natural selection and adaptation can be observed

You can stop trying to pass off a theory as fact to me. It's ok. My next post has several sources.

Santa is real!

You have admitted in this thread that you believe ANYTHING without 100% concrete evidence to the facts.

Let's go back to talking about games. Your fairy tails are annoying me.

It's tales not tails. One is a story, the other is the appendage of an animal.

Also, nice that you have yet to actually address anything said, instead just spouting bullshit rhetoric while throwing together random science terms in hopes that no one will notice

Did you even read what I posted? A scientific theory is the highest level of scientific knowledge, it is completely different from the common use of the word theory.

Seriously, go take a biology course.

Post 100% irrefutable FACTS that support that your theories are real. I'm not the one using theories / guesses as my argument.

Your argument has as many holes as the theory itself.

Answer one question. Is evolution a 100% scientific accurate fact. Accepted by all scholars in the field?

Your answer can only be Yes, for your argument to hold any merit.

Go talk shit to someone else. I'm done here.

#247 Edited by lostrib (37047 posts) -

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

You can stop trying to pass off a theory as fact to me. It's ok. My next post has several sources.

Santa is real!

You have admitted in this thread that you believe ANYTHING without 100% concrete evidence to the facts.

Let's go back to talking about games. Your fairy tails are annoying me.

It's tales not tails. One is a story, the other is the appendage of an animal.

Also, nice that you have yet to actually address anything said, instead just spouting bullshit rhetoric while throwing together random science terms in hopes that no one will notice

Did you even read what I posted? A scientific theory is the highest level of scientific knowledge, it is completely different from the common use of the word theory.

Seriously, go take a biology course.

Post 100% irrefutable FACTS that support that your theories are real. I'm not the one using theories / guesses as my argument.

Your argument has as many holes as the theory itself.

Answer one question. Is evolution a 100% scientific accurate fact. Accepted by all scholars in the field?

Your answer can only be Yes, for your argument to hold any merit.

Go talk shit to someone else. I'm done here.

They're not guesses!!! Please go learn how science works

#248 Edited by B4X (4799 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

You can stop trying to pass off a theory as fact to me. It's ok. My next post has several sources.

Santa is real!

You have admitted in this thread that you believe ANYTHING without 100% concrete evidence to the facts.

Let's go back to talking about games. Your fairy tails are annoying me.

It's tales not tails. One is a story, the other is the appendage of an animal.

Also, nice that you have yet to actually address anything said, instead just spouting bullshit rhetoric while throwing together random science terms in hopes that no one will notice

Did you even read what I posted? A scientific theory is the highest level of scientific knowledge, it is completely different from the common use of the word theory.

Seriously, go take a biology course.

Post 100% irrefutable FACTS that support that your theories are real. I'm not the one using theories / guesses as my argument.

Your argument has as many holes as the theory itself.

Answer one question. Is evolution a 100% scientific accurate fact. Accepted by all scholars in the field?

Your answer can only be Yes, for your argument to hold any merit.

Go talk shit to someone else. I'm done here.

They're not guesses!!!

Please go learn how science works

That's what I thought. You have Nothing.

#249 Edited by lostrib (37047 posts) -

@b4x said:

@lostrib said:

@b4x said:

Post 100% irrefutable FACTS that support that your theories are real. I'm not the one using theories / guesses as my argument.

Your argument has as many holes as the theory itself.

Answer one question. Is evolution a 100% scientific accurate fact. Accepted by all scholars in the field?

Your answer can only be Yes, for your argument to hold any merit.

Go talk shit to someone else. I'm done here.

They're not guesses!!!

Please go learn how science works

That's what I thought. You have Nothing.

Yes, nothing besides the wealth of scientific evidence that supports evolution, and the fact that you can actually observe adaptation and natural selection

#250 Edited by cainetao11 (17614 posts) -

@ladyblue said:

Smart decision, can't ignore that 80+ million install base just to please some fanboys.

However this was known since the e3 conference.

Agreed. This board and its exclusive definition doesn't apply to the real world. FH2 is coming to 360 as well as X1 because...........................it stands to make more money. These companies don't care about our definition of exclusive. Just that you need one of their products to play it.