Is it me or the Cohors evocata and the Praetorians are missing 2 armor points?
Cheers...
Printable View
Is it me or the Cohors evocata and the Praetorians are missing 2 armor points?
Cheers...
My understanding is that they used more or less the same equipment as other legionaries, and as such their armor stat should not be higher. However, at least the evocati should have a little better morale and probably defense/attack due to their experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by mAIOR
Dangerous ground there. Setting "theory" above "hypothesis" merely implies that enough scientists bought into the "hypothesis" to believe it's "fact" but don't want to get caught having to prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
So....what determines moving a "hypothesis" to a "theory" exactly? Number of people believing it to be true? Popularity of the idea? Political correctness of the idea?
Sorry, kinda like facts and not-facts as opposed to facts, likely facts, probably facts, maybe facts, not likely to be facts, hopefully facts and willfully facts :).
Actually this is untrue, we know the common ancestors of both primates and human beings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
Really. They actually found a smoking gun? Got a link somewhere?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
A law is a "general statement about nature." A law really explains nothing. It is the theories that explain the laws. That's why the "law of gravity" is explained by the theory of universal gravitation and theory of relativity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Gravity can't be seen, can't be touched, can't be tested (what you experience is acceleration and normal force), etc. Overall, gravity is a theory supported by evidence, just like every other theory in science.
Well, nothing in science in concrete. Evolution is the best scientific argument that explains the origins of life, and supported by various fields of science ranging from biology to paleontology to chemistry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
As for leaps of faiths, well, the leap required evolution isn't that great. We have skeletons from primates such as neanderthals, cro magons, Australopithecus afarenaris, Australopithecus Africanus, "taung child," "java man," "peking man," etc that supports the idea that modern primates and humans have a common ancestor.
As for theories, theories can never become fact. Hell, we don't even know if gravity actually exists or not... :/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
Hypothesis that is well supported by evidence and cross examined by other scientists eventually becomes theories.
There is no such thing as a "smoking gun." That's actually a popular term constantly advocated by creationists/intelligent designists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
Evolution is a non-stop continual process that has been occurring for hundreds of millions of years. Unless you dig up every single fossil of every primate that every existed, you're only going to get skeletons that represent transient points in time.
If you want a link, look up science articles on neanderthals, cro magons, Australopithecus afarenaris, Australopithecus Africanus, "taung child," "java man," "peking man," etc
If you want a link regarding evolution in other life forms, here are some good google topics:
"lung fish developing color vision"
"whales & dolphins have hindlegs bones"
"sea anemone light receptors evolve into eye"
etc
Here is a science link to fun facts on vestigial organs left over from evolution:
http://www.livescience.com/animals/t...al_organs.html
Again - not argueing from a anti-evolution standpoint - merely playing devils advocate (no pun intended.) My understanding was that there was no genetic link between Homo Sapiens Sapiens and Neanderthal making it not an ancestor but a failed evolutionary tract.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
Even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution comes with quite a bit of speculations given the data. This goes back to my earlier post wherein some folks want to have another layer of "truth" between "hypothesis" and "proveable fact." Theories, actually, can become fact and it wouldn't suprise me to have a proof of gravity at some point (maybe even in our lifetime.) String theory anyone? :p
Geez dude I thought everyone was aware of this by now, its even on wiki for chrissakes.
latest common ancestor of humans and chipanzees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis
And this right here is my biggest problem with your "hypothesis" / "theory" idea. Simply because I didn't agree I've been pigeonholed regarding my ideas. I personally don't have any more "faith" in God any more than I have "faith" that science has filled in all the answers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
We are here now. What came before (certainly what came millions of years before not history of our own species which we can learn modern lessons from) is an interesting excersise. Maybe I'm just jaded but the debate about what happened a few million years ago that resulted in me sitting here in front of my computer typing away seems awfully damn detatched from practicality.
Not having a vested interest on either side of the equation makes watching both sides go out of their way to "prove" an unproveable point kinda funny :).
Just a small snippet:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
"Another possibility is that Toumaï is anatomically related to both humans and chimpanzees, but the ancestor of neither."
Yep - sounds like facts to me.
No, everything is always up for review. Elevating a hypothesis to the status of theory should not ever affect how it is treated when data is compared to the predictions the theory makes. The case of Newton's theory of natural gravitation shows very well how even the most universally trusted scientific theories can be disproven by data; no physicist today holds any faith in Newton's theory, instead relying on the theory of general relativity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
Science does not really deal with fact. No theory is ever sacrosanct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
"failed evolutionary tract"
Exactly If other species evolve, why won't humans? Humans certainly are not some special organism immune to the laws of nature.
"Theories, actually, can become fact and it wouldn't suprise me to have a proof of gravity at some point"
Incorrect. Theories can never become laws. Theories are supported by factual evidence. A fact (you probably meant law) is a generalized statement about nature. A theory explains laws in detail. String theory actually isn't a theory at this point - they call it "theory" but in actuality it is treated as a hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
I haven't pidgeoned your ideas. What I said was true - IDers/creationists DO use the term "smoking gun" quite often as a rebuttal to evolution.
As for my theory/hypothesis idea, no this is not "my idea." This is called the "scientific method" - something we all learned in middle school.
Science is not something that requires the same type of faith as religion. As for all the answers, no, science will never be able to explain "everything" but science is the best tool we have to explain the physical world.
The question I will ask you know is - If you don't believe in evolution, what do you believe in?
exactly. science does not deal in absolutes, only religion does that. science takes the evidence and gives the best possible explanation as we understand it at the time. look at einstein's work on general relativity, before newton's theories on gravity were predominant.
Thought I made that relatively clear in the last post: who cares? It's not a point that anyone can prove beyond doubt and has no measurable point in its current form beyond science proving the bible wrong or the bible proving science wrong. What's even more amusing is why either side gives a large rats butt what the other believes beyond a psycological excersise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
As to the "scientific method" being learned in middle school (/chuckle) it seems we lose sight of that method when defending theories that we are psycologically passionate about. I'm not saying that's you or that it applies in this instance or every instance but too often people accept "theories" as facts unsupported simply because it's easier than actually having to think about it.
"he's a scientist - what he said must be true." :beam:
Edit: Funny you would ask me what I would "believe" in. Look up the definitions of belief and see how merely asking about belief kinda invalidates our scientific discussion :)
Starforge, basicly the bible will neer ever prove science wrong.
Science evolves and attapts, and is constatly changing, take physics for example, every ten years the thorys change dramaticly.
And "who cares" about wheather or not evolution exists. C'mon don't be stupid, in the treatment of infectious diseases the theory of evolution comes into play. How else did peniclin magicly stop working?
So basically you're avoiding my question?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
Judging from your previous statements, I will make the assumption that you are an intelligent design supporter. Which is also why you are refusing to answer my question.
And you ask who cares? Well, when PETA members firebomb medical research plants and Greenpeace tries to destroy genetically engineered crops out of ignorance of biology, hundreds of millions of people die from the potential benefits that science would yield.
Actually, biologists don't give a damn what Pat Robertson or Billy Graham thinks. The problem here is when religious fundamentalists try to inject religious teachings into public school, which not only threatens the separation of church and state, but also scientific advancements that benefits humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
Unfortunately, the only time most of us care about science is when another nation (ie. Soviets) show that they are superior in the scientific field (ie. launching of Sputnik), thus creating a public furor and support for science (space race).
Not having to think about it? It's actually far easier to say "BAM! Jesus intelligently designed mankind in 6 days, 7000 years ago," rather than thinking about how a highly selective and complex biological process is responsible for the creation of life over 800 million years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
As for your statement that "he's a scientist - what he said must be true."
Have you ever heard of the scientific community? That semi-organization exists solely for the purpose of scientific debate and the questioning of science. Never heard of the "Darwin wars" either?
And your final statement. I asked what you "believe in." I didn't ask you for your religious faith. Belief and faith are two different words with different definitions. Look it up.
"At last I went to the artisans; I was conscious that I knew nothing at all, as I may say, and I was sure that they knew many fine things; and here I was not mistaken, for they did know many things of which I was ignorant, and in this they certainly were wiser than I was. But I observed that even the good artisans fell into the same error as the poets;, because they were good workmen they thought that they also knew all sorts of high matters, and this defect in them overshadowed their wisdom;"
I'm not a scientist myself. I'd much rather trust the general scientific community of anthropologists, botonists, biologists, et al., than someone who just has a feeling that something isn't right with their generally agreed beliefs, or someone who is relying on words written down by humans a little before our mod's time period that is supposed to have all the answers wrapped up neatly for us.
sigh...did I say it would? Doesn't keep a bunch of folks from believing they can though does it? Can science disprove "faith?" Not the words or specifics of a human written bible but actually change peoples beliefs? I'm not saying that their "faith" is right but having it will happen in spite of science (want several thousand years of recorded history as evidence?) Just using recent history and Christianity....how long did it take the Catholic church to revoke the excommunication of Copernicus? heh.Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
Not saying that adaptation and natural selection don't work as observed in the example you used. Without knowing the environmental factors and the actual ancestors to modern humans makes knowing how / why we evolved problematic. Why do we have 10 fingers and toes? We can extrapolate that it was a mutation that provided a selectable benefit but we'll very likely never know why.Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
Maybe all of this was evolution, maybe ID, maybe space aliens populated the earth a million years ago and we can't find the ship. /shrug and....? :beam:
No...you're asking me to pick a side. I'm closest to apathetic agnostic (look it up if you want a definition.) Problem is - it's always easier when we can pigeonhole people down a set path. We assume folks are christian right or socialists or communists or whatever so that we can assume the rest of the facts without having to think about their individual positions. If there is a God (or big juju as George Carlin calls it) since he / she / it doesn't involve itself in any manifest or meaningful way in daily existance....who cares. But feel free to assume I'm aligned with Billy Graham if that's your comfort zone rofl.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
Actually, the original constitution in no way wanted a separation of church and state and only protestants - particularly worried about the Catholic church getting a foothold as the state religion, placed that language into the constitution. Have to laugh your ass off that the same people who put the language in out of fear are now stuck with it (to use a religious term - reap what you sow.) Don't believe me - look it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
I know what belief means but here's a helpful link for ya:Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
Not overly scientific methinks.
Edit: Maybe it was the "big Electrode" with George Carlin....been a while since I watched that one :p
I view evolution the same way I do God.
In neither instance can I provide you with abolute proof but that doesn't stop me from believing both to be true.
How's that you you?:beam:
From my understanding the Romans had a real tough time with Spain, especially in the 150's. The ones I listed in the 190's goes a little in the detail on some of these but not much. I have listed the 3 main battles at the bottom of this post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treverer
The Infantry is who I was mainly referring to considering the good cavalry and missile troops tended to be mercenaries(for the most part). The infantry I do think was exceptional(by Caesars time for sure), not the greatest but they were certainly good not just "they only became the tremendous fighting force we know them as under a few select generals."Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I know for the battles with the Celts the Romans in general were outnumbered. As far as against the Samnites,Greeks etc. I'm not sure I agree with you, I haven't read enough of the battles yet to make that conclusion. The reserve did play a big part but so did the Roman discipline and triplex acies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I don't recall any of this discussion before except one that dealt with Roman culture, not the soldiers or army. As far as the German(which I started) and Celtic threads how is it that "I" turned them into a "miasma of suck"?Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
I posted this part:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frostwulf
My list as said above was basic and made just to show the following post as wrong:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
The Romans did win more battles then they lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by HFox
@Sarcasm-I'm not ignoring your post, I just feel that I answered you from my above reply.
For your second post:
I concur completely with you on this, I believe I have said something along the same lines as this in the Celtic overpowered thread, I believe I said they were militia/conscript army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
I stated my list was basic and didn't get into those much. Here is what is written during the Spanish Wars of the 190's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarcasm
Turda(195)-Spanish Wars
During the Second Punic War the Spanish tribes fought for one side or the other(or both in turn). Soon after the cessation of hostilities they began to fight for themselves-against the Romans. In 197 the Romans divided the administration of the conquered part into two praetorian provinces, Hispania Citerior (Hither Spain) in the east and Hispania Ulterior (Further Spain ) in the south. In the same year there was an insurrection in Hither Spain in which a Roman army was routed at an unknown place and the praetor Tuditanus died of his wounds. After this, the Spaniards appeared to simmer down until, two years later, the praetor Minucius routed two Spanish commanders in a pitched battle near Turda (probably Turba), inflicting 12,000 casualties and capturing one of the commanders. It is unsaid but may be presumed that the Spaniards started the fight. Livy, 33:44(4-5) pg.197
Iliturgi(195)-Spanish Wars
Marcus Helvius was retiring from Further Spain with 6,000men at the end of his tour of duty. A large force of Celtiberians, estimated at around 20,000 in number, fell upon him in the vicinity of Ilitugi [near Cabanes]. About 12,000 of the Celtiberians were said to be killed. The town was seized and all the adults were put to death. Livy, 34:10(1-2) pg. 197
Emporiae(195)-Spanish Wars
The senate decided that the escalation of the war in Spain necessitated a commander of consular rank instead of praetor. The province of Hither Spain was assigned to Marcus Porcius Cato, wo landed at Emporiae[Ampurias] just south of the Pyrenees and encamped nearby. While he was there, representatives of the Ilegetes, who were allies of Rome, came to complain that they were being continually attacked by hostile tribesmen and they asked for help. Cato was in a dilemma. He was unwilling to refuse aid to his allies but thought it equally unwise to weaken his modest force. He solved the problem by ordering the embarkation of a third of his force n full view of the delegates. When the latter had departed to report the 'facts', which were also certain to reach the enemy ears, he ordered the disembarkation of the troops. After a period of intensive training, he took his men out one night and led them past the enemy position. At daybreak he drew his men up in battle order and sent thee cohorts up to the ramparts. When the enemy saw them, Cato recalled them as if in flight. The ploy succeeded in enticing the enemy out of their defenses, where upon Cato ordered the cavalry to attack them on both flanks while they were still in disorder. Even with this advantage, the fighting was indecisive. The cavalry on the right were driven back, causing some panic, and so the consul sent two cohorts to outflank the enemy on that wing and attack them in the rear. This redressed the balance. When his men became exhausted, the consul put in fresh reserves who made a vigorous charge in wedge formation. This force the enemy back and then put them to flight back to their camp. When Cato saw this, he ordered the second legion to advance at full speed and attack the camp. The fighting was still robust and the camp was vigorously defended until the consul noticed that the left gate was only thinly manned. He directed the principes and hastati to the weak point, where they burst inside the camp. After that, it became a massacre as the Romans cut down the enemy who jostled and scrummed at the approaches to the gates. The enemy losses were 'heavy'. In consequence of the battle the Spaniards in that area surrendered, as did many other towns along the consul's route until the whole country north of the Ebro had been subdued. Livy, 34: 11-16920; Appian, Spanish Wars,40 pg.197
These came from :Battles of the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Chronological Compendium of 667 Battles to 31Bc, from the Historians of the Ancient World by John Drogo Montagu.
Here is a list from another forum, though I don't know how exact it is.
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=15563
So you're basically saying you have no opinions on the origins of life or science/religion/etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
Then as an "apathetic agnostic," why did you comment and say this:
"Depends probably on how you use it. Proving how certain attributes have "evolved" as a response to environmental conditions on certain species can likely be done. Proving that human beings evolved from primates still requires some leaps of faith since we seem to be missing those smoking guns that positively lead us from primate to modern man."
Your statements basically states "belief in evolution requires a leap of faith," which is quite a non-apathetic argument which leads me to believe you do have a strong opinion tilting to one side.
And actually, the founding fathers were mostly non-Christian Deists who did not believe in a personal diety that intervened in the universe. Their philosophy was mostly based on Enlightenment influences (with various judeo-christian elements). It's funny how everyone assumes that the founders wanted a Judeo-Christian nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starforge
The word believe has nothing to do with science because modern vocabulary assigns more than one definition to a word.
Dictionary.com is more useful than wiki definitions. Here is a helpful link for you that explains the definitions of the word "believe."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/believe
Look up the 2nd and 3rd definitions of the word believe.
More or less the same armor except for the two greaves giving them extra protection. Yet this was erased with the watered down Romans in EB 1.0 for mysterious reasons, I believe.Quote:
My understanding is that they used more or less the same equipment as other legionaries, and as such their armor stat should not be higher. However, at least the evocati should have a little better morale and probably defense/attack due to their experience.
What part of "closest to" don't you get ROFL. And yes - belief in evolution does require many leaps in faith simply because scientists find bits and pieces of evidence and have to speculate on how this or that fits into their philosophy. Accepting what they come up with as "truth" would certainly require some "faith" :juggle2: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
It's funny how people who don't like Christians (as seems obvious from your posts though I'm sure you'll disagree to appear more tolerant) go out of their way to assume that the founding fathers (folks who held mass every Sunday in Congress I guess as a PR stint) didn't respect Judeo-Christianity. It kinda pisses me off as a person who attempts to respect history that 200 plus years later, our progressive society would like to rewrite history to support their viewpoint. Don't like Christians, the religious right, or their views - fine. Hit them with ideas not revisionist history. That Jefferson and I'm sure other of the founding fathers were worried about a church (be it Anglican as he was raised or Catholic or whatever) have undue influence over the states I have no doubt. Denying that even a Deist (presumably) such as Jefferson didn't respect Judeo-Christianity is absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
Oh, wait, I'm argueing a Christian viewpoint - I must REALLY be a Christian!! :bounce:
Yup - don't look behind the curtain and skip the first definition. I'm sorry, but if that doesn't underline where you are coming from I don't know what does. Believe only what supports your argument. You really didn't mean the most common definition of the word "believe" but actually one of the secondary meanings. My bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
Couldn't have proved my point any better.
Um, evolution does not require leaps of faith, there is a plethora of evidence in the scientific community.
And it is well known that most of the Founders were diests or unitarian universalists who did not practice "Christianity" as protestant evangelicals do today. They have tried to hijack the 'founding fathers' for religious propaganda.
Wasn't meaning to challenge your beliefs :beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
So, I ask again - having mass on Sunday in Congress as a matter of public record was a PR stint? /sigh. Find me sources that say they were Deists and I can find sources that say otherwise (and both sides are biased with the political times.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Zaknafien
Lol. Well, this kind of fearmongering on both sides (The Christians will take away our rights / the Progressive will undermine our values) is laughable. Keeps people fighting each other while the people at the top keep taking their money to the bank so I guess it's effective.
While I haven't read back to see where the heck this came out of a discussion of Roman legions, this statement could not possibly be more wrong and is a serious pet peeve of mine (and I suspect of most other scientists).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
The whole strategy of the US creationist movement is based on the wildly different meanings of the words "fact" and "theory" in their everyday vs. scientific usages. In everyday English, a "fact" is as good as information gets, while a "theory" is just some idea someone had that may or may not be true. In science, "fact" is just another name for "data point". They're indispensable, but they're also the most basic and trivial type of information. Theories are the most solid, bedrock ideas in science because they organize huge numbers of indivdiually meaningless facts into a coherent whole, allowing us to understand why phenomenon X occurs and to predict new phenomena. Creationists are semantically correct when they say evolution is a theory, not a fact. The problem is that they (and many of their listeners in this country) believe that's a criticism or a statement of weakness... :wall:
To be fair, scientists don't help matters by using alternate meanings of the word theory (I think the origins lie with the mathematicians, but I could be wrong). Evolution, gravity, electromagnetism, etc., are theories as above, while string theory (for example) is a rather different beast...
First I'd like to re-state that theory is not fact; that theory never meant fact; and that all a theory is - really is a way of reasoning based on either facts or nothing at all. Science (and especially its history) is full of theories which haven't been proven or have been firmly disproven. Theories merely try to explain what occurs. Science is the sport of asking yourself: "what?". It's the only question you can try and prove or disprove through experiments - and you concept theories regarding the answer before you start doing experiments.
Scientific Law on the other hand is about fact insofar as that it will tell you what certain data means regarding other data. It is the proven theory, if you will.
If you would go into Math theories you will find that especially there theories often have hardly (if any at all) factual basis (heck even the word basis means something entirely else there, and indicates a particular line of reasoning -called induction- is being followed) - and that they are built from well often nomenclature. Some theories make it into law, because they get mathematically proven - some are discarded through counter examples for instance, yet another class is forgotten and most of all remain just that: a theory.
Now, before someone starts believing I am some sort of US Creationist or the likes of them... That is about as wrong as you can get. Creationists, I am fully aware of, often will emphasise this aspect of science (a theory isn't a proven fact and therefore shouldn't be thaught as such - which if you think about it isn't a really bad thing to keep in mind) yet on the other hand they ignore the simple fact that their own beliefs haven't been proven as right either. Still, they are right when they claim "theories are not facts".
Only 'scientific' law and data are.
Heh.
Look - at a very early age I was taught by a very bright uncle to question everything. Just because someone tells you that "this is how things are" doesn't mean that they really are. Question it - investigate for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
The sad thing is - if you utilize this philosophy, many times you run into folks who act as if you walked into church and said "there is no God" even when discussing science. It's funny how emotionally tied people get to their positions and how we are all automatically presumed to have chosen a side. With us or against us!
It's not something I intend to apologize for, however, the thread itself has diverted awfully far from it's purpose.
Back to our regularly scheduled historical simulation discussion.
There aren't really any scientific laws. That word was once used, but since the "laws" of Newton were proven to be in error, the term has more or less fallen out of use in scientific circles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
When a scientist makes a suggestion for an explanation of a set of data, that is called a hypothesis. If that hypothesis explains all the data available, and also makes predictions that are confirmed, it typically ends up being viewed as a theory - a very strong hypothesis that is able to explain a very large part of the scientific field in question. So useful are these theories, that they often keep being taught even after they are scientifically disproven, simply because they are very useful in explaining and calculating many phenomena. Newton's "laws" are still taught in physics, the "central dogma" is still taught in molecular biology, etc.