Thanks to our indefatigable programmers at Darwinalia Inc., the new and improved version of Panda-Monium is now out: go here.
Comments
Giff,
Pandamonium is great stuff. Is there a pause button somewhere for when my kids annoy me about helping them with their homework?taciturnus
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
jboze
Remember they also laughed at Bozo the clown!Alan Fox
September 22, 2005
September
09
Sep
22
22
2005
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT
off topic, but can someone please explain to me why when flipping thru the program listings for natl geographic channel and the science channel- they have dozens of shows airing on UFO's, wormholes, time travel, etc. and it's all taken seriously as honest scientific thought, but if someone tried to air a show on ID or anything that examines evolution (which is just seen as a given), they would call it pseudoscience and religion as science?
i often wonder how a scientist can sit there and say- common ancestry is common sense, and anyone who doesn't buy it is a fool, while at the same time talking about how he's looking into wormholes and hopes to unlock the ability to travel billions of light years in seconds via these wormholes. then, he'll talk about alien life forms and his life long quest as part of SETI to find life in space. space aliens and invisible wormholes are respected topics among "real scientists" but the idea that an intelligent being is behind the many forms of life is psuedoscience and no "real scientist" denies common ancestry?
how on earth did we get to this point? it wasn't too long ago that nearly all major scientists were outright creationists, and now you're an anti-science fool if you consider yourself in that camp or leaning toward that camp in any way? (speaking only for myself and my views of course.)
i just finished an article on bacteria and viruses and how forms discovered in the 1800's are identical to the same ones we see today, which means that there has been no change to any new type (they haven't gone thru any "macroevolutionary" change). if that's the case, (and i go back again to the fruit flies and e coli they've actually used to SPEED UP the mutation rates), and there is no real change to any new type of life form- why is someone an idiot if they don't buy into common ancestry period? i just can't even begin to understand where science took the turn down this road. i'm no scientist, and common sense tells me, this doesn't make a shred of sense, yet if i told a group of scientists this worldview, most of them (maybe ALL of them depending on the venue) would call me a fool. if majority thought is considered the only reasonable way to go, doesn't that mean that nearly all scientists were fools when einstein showed that some of newton's ideas were wrong? so, if nearly all scientists were wrong (and by way of this thinking, "fools"), isn't it totally arrogant to think that the majority could never possibly find themselves in the same spot again? what did they call the scientists who didn't buy into some of newton's ideas that were wrong? they probably laughed at them and said that anyone who didn't buy into the generally accepted ideas were idiots, no?jboze3131
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
i feel dumb. i JUST realized what the first panda is saying ("who designed the designer?")- i think that's what it says? i was playing it 10 mins ago, and now i'm not sure.
anyhow- it's not easy for me to tell what he's saying.jboze3131
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
It looks good. I only got to the 3rd level. :-( So far the mockery seems totally appropriate. Example: "Bad design means no design" - this is ridiculous. The space shuttle blows up 2% of the time. I never actually read the specs for the space shuttle, but I would guess that the catastrophic failures were not in the original plan. "Bad design means no design" tells us that we can infer from these failures, that no-one actually ever designed the space shuttle. Hello? Is anyone home?
BTW, re the poor design of the Panda: I understand that this specie has been fullfilling at least one design requirement (to survive) for several thousand (?) million (?) years. Thats pretty good for a bad design. Here's another comparison: the space shuttle has hundreds (?) thousands (?) of full-time support technicians working on it. In contrast, the Panda has only the momma bear and the poppa bear (and even they probably end their support role after the first year or so.) The premise of "Bad design" is so utterly & embarrassingly wrong that it deserves some mockery. The repetition is good, too - since it helps to drill in the absurdity. The other premise of the "bad design means no design" argument is that "the designer is perfect." Isnt that ironic for people who claim to not believe in a Designer?Tim Sverduk
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
DaveScot:
Make sure you clear your browser cache before you click the link. I don't see you in the highscore - you may not have the latest version.Giff
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
Cogzoid:
It isn't sarcasm though - that WOULD be a low form of humor. It's a parody - satire - in the tradition of "a modest proposal" and the Simpsons. The arguments really are used, just not in the squeaky panda tone of voice. The humor is in exagerrating just a little to make a point.
I sympathize with your sentiment, but naturally I'm a bit defensive (as I've put a lot of time and energy into this little baby). I'm only poking fun at the demonstrably false arguments that have been debunked time and time again, only to reappear ad nauseum. The game was meant to be some comic relief for the ID folks who have to deal with this day in and day out - hearing the same old arguments like never-ending enemies in space invaders or centipede. Better to laugh than shout and scream.
Petro:
Something is in the works somewhat akin to what you're talking about, though not at the end of each level.Giff
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
09:25 PM
9
09
25
PM
PDT
Sarcasm is a low form of humour. And probably one of the most mean-spirited. I guess I hoped that those involved in a intellectual debate would strive to be above it. I guess I was wrong.
[Cogzoid, you are out of here. --WmAD]cogzoid
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
Like the game Giff but how about a quick answer (maybe srolling along the botton) to each of those arguments at the completion of each level, to show just how ridiculous they are. This ll make it both fun and educational!!
Petropetro
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT
Giff
Ra-men, brother. Ra-men.
Only got a chance to play once today. Made it to 75,000 points on level 8. I was a bit rushed though. Keep the laugh lines coming!DaveScot
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PDT
And it's not like the whole spagetti monster thing gets me riled up. It makes me crack a smile, although the argument it is based on is hopelessly flawed. A little levity and humor really is what this remarkably mean-spirited debate needs, at least in my opinion.Giff
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
The panda game and the evolution in a box are harmless fun. They are not of a piece with the insults and name-calling that sometimes happen online. I saw Phillip Johnson take some jabs from Will Provine in a taped debate on design at Stanford and I don't think it prevented the two of them from having a substantive and serious debate.russ
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
I enjoyed the game. People probably need put their thick skin on and get over themselves if they're offended by a silly video game.St. Arbucks
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
05:44 PM
5
05
44
PM
PDT
I think the whole gaming thing is cool. I send links to things like this to my friends who are interested in ID (some are supportive of ID, and some are critical of it) and the feedback is generally good. People on both sides of the issue seem to be loosening up a bit (at least in my little sphere of contacts) and I think that the cartoons and games are helping that process.
I am actually anxious to see a game produced by the evolutionists where the player can design their own gradual, detailed, fully-functional biochemical pathway that results in an irreducibly complex entity found in biology. This is a game that I would like to play if it were ever to hit the market (but would I have to play it for millions of years before I scored any points?)Sal Monella
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
I should say I love the "Yowie!" the pandas make.MississippiBoy
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Great game! I love the "Yowzah" the pandas make.MississippiBoy
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
[I removed the carping post to which you are responding here. --WmAD]
Whatever do you mean? I have it on good authority that some at pandasthumb appreciate the game for giving a mouthpiece to some of the crushing arguments against ID!
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/i_think_were_ge.html#comment-48571
Anyway, I hope the game is only childish in its levity and creativity, not in mean-spiritedness. Honestly, I have heard some decent arguments against ID, and would like to see them debated and addressed. However, it's hard to even hear them because of the high proliferation of falacious arguments (it seems one hears 30 bad arguments for every good one). If I can help people laugh at the bad ones, perhaps that will spur more people to use the good ones, and we can have a more serious and interesting (and dare I say more respectful) debate.Giff
September 21, 2005
September
09
Sep
21
21
2005
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Wow!! Hard to imagine that the already existing version of *Panda-monium* could be progressively enhanced in any way, shape, or form. Now I have hours of improved panda blasting awaiting me at my desktop!
BTW. Good luck on the forthcoming debate. Or, should I say . . . may a positive train of cause and effect that was instigated by an Unspecified Designer and front loaded at the time of the Big Bang work in your favor as you seek to defend Intelligent Design theory ;)
Yours,
Sal MonellaSal Monella