ENIGMA Development Environment

Harri, you are still way off base.

I am not sure if my English is absurdly bad or something, but people keep somehow not understanding me. What you described in the rest of the paragraph is exactly what I described in the paragraph about GL1/GL3.

And you are still incorrect

The rest of your sentence just said the same thing I did. " WIDE array of extensions", "add scripts directly to your project that will modify the interface of the Unity editor", "custom dialog for you to import a custom mesh format". All that is an example of "And that you need to figure it all out. While in ENIGMA/GM you usually write all your stuff on your own. ". That is in no way a good thing, but it does teach you more. That is what I am saying. I am not saying that a person should use ENIGMA/GM over Unity. I am not saying Unity is bad. I am just saying that for "learning" and "first programming language" you should actually use a tool that requires "learning programming language".

GM isn't good for education either

It actually started specifically as an educational tool. Mark Overmars was teaching game design and GM was a tool he created to teach that (originally was for animation though).

You seriously need to venture out and try some different game engines other than GM.

I have. I haven't tried that many tools though. I have used C++ based and Python based engines. I also dabbled with Source a while back, but it's also C++. GM is about the only game tool that I have tried. Hasn't been that many reasons to try something else.

Your definition of science is non-existant. I can just as easily tell you the same things.

Well I gave several definitions, and there are several, but there is an overarching idea that they all share.

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

And here comes in your understanding what is meant with observation and experimentation. Because evolution (as for example Robert pointed out) is both observed and experimented with. The fact that you cannot see human go from ape ancestor to now doesn't change anything. Just how we haven't actually seen gamma radiation with our own eyes, but only detect it via secondary means.

ExDeus, you've repeatedly mentioned creatures adapting to back up evolution, so if evolution has nothing to do with that, you are contradicting yourself. Make up your mind.

There again is difference between "adaption" in biology (and evolution) and "adaption" in the layman's terms which you were actually using. Using a coat is adaption in layman's terms, because you are making a conscious decision towards a goal. It's not like a coat spontaneously generated around you. No, you either made it or bought it, and then you wore it. You adapted to outside world, but you made an effort to do that. Here is evolutionary definition:

1. Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation) What here is meant that the organism doesn't actually decide that it will adapt to survive. What it means is that certain individuals in the population have the traits to survive in a specific habitat while others do not. An example of evolution and adaption:
Take flies and put them in a box with air, food and anything else they would need to survive and procreate. At certain temperature flies would die immediate - for example, at -10C they would probably die pretty fast if put there from room temperature. But if you lower the temperature slowly (very slow, over hundreds or even thousands of generations) then this is what will happen - Flies that are more resistant to colder temperatures will live longer than those who are not suited. That mean the ones more resistant will procreate more and their descendants will also be more resistant (as it will be more likely that both parents have this mutation). After hundreds or thousands of generations they will be able to survive at cold temperature, because even though maybe 0.1% at the beginning were capable of that, in the end 100% will be. So they evolved and adapted to the habitat via the evolution. The reason for their survival could even be a "coat" - as in more hairy flies would be the ones more resistant to cold. This would also make them a new species - a hairy cold resistant fly. They would also be physically (visibly) changed. So they "adapted", but trough evolution and random mutations. If none of them had these mutations, they would die out (go extinct). If the temperature change was very drastic (like taking from room temperature into -10C), then they would also all die out even if there was some individuals who had the mutation, because of the speed of the event it would not be possible for the right individuals to procreate and the mutation that gives the resistance to cold could also be primary only over time (many generations). I could probably even program this as an example in ENIGMA.

What was this shit you were saying about science not based on visual evidense?

And it's not. Observation, again, doesn't mean LOOKING. You keep using your own basic vocabulary and jump to conclusions. None of the words you keep using have the definitions you think they have in the context we use. For example, definition of observation:

Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source

Thus, nothing specifically to do with visual evidence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation#Observation_in_science)

And science doesn't need to be tested in order to be declared science?

It does need to be tested. I never said it doesn't need to be. But your understanding of "testing" or "experimentation" is very limited as you don't get what induction and deduction means. Many (I would say up to 99%) of hypothesis cannot be tested directly, so they are instead tested indirectly by knowing relationships (which theories and hypothesis describe) between things.

Mutations have never been proven to cause anything positive or hereditary such as a species becoming dominant or survive longer than other species.

There have been countless examples (even posted here) on the contrary.

Mutations can never be passed on to the next generation, so who are you fooling here?

What? Do you know what a mutation even is? How the hell you think it cannot be passed to the next generation? You do know, that for example, eye color is a mutation. One has green, others has blue. If both parents have blue eyes it is a lot more likely that the child will also have blue eyes, because they passed that mutation to their next generation. On the other hand it is possible that the child has a different mutation and eye color doesn't match. For example, all my family has blue eyes while I am the only one with green. Even my grandparents doesn't have green eyes. So I have a mutation that I didn't inherit. But my children have a pretty large chance to inherit green eyes from me.

This is an issue I have, if this is the case, then why are we not amongst some of our already evolving ancestors.

40k in evolutionary terms is drop in an ocean. People usually have problems with large numbers and understanding the scale of evolutionary time. There are subtle changes from people that lived 40k years ago, but of course there isn't much that has changed. Just like Cambrian explosion. I have seen some movies where creationists use it as an example why evolution is wrong. They say that it's impossible that number of species increased so fast, as the length of time is only about 20minutes in earths lifetime (if we take earth's life as 24 hours). But the thing is these 20minutes is still 80million years. And even 80million years divided by 40k you were mentioning is 2000. So that evolutionary stage took 2000 times more. So in the end evolution is extremely slow process and it works only because we can take hundreds of millions of years into account. 40k or even 100k is drop in an ocean on this scale.

The big bang is a theory because a large majority of scientists can not recreate the same experiment and get the same results consistently proving the big bang

Actually scientist do recreate same experiments with consistent results. That is why big bang is also "theory" in the scientific sense - as in everyone agrees that it most probably happened - or alternatively - as close to fact as possible. Like we know pretty detailedly what happened less than fraction of a second after the big bang. Knowing what happened before this fraction is still the open question and that is why we build very expensive machines.

Now gravity is a scientific law because it has been tested by many scientists and regular people over and over again with the same equations and always yielded the same results.

In science it actually still is theory. I already pointed out what is law and theory in science. Gravity is defined by general relativity theory, not by general relativity law. We of course do know that it works and in layman's terms it is a law. But scientifically, it is a theory.

So i think it's a little bold to say there is no difference between theory and facts.

In science theory and fact and law are often used interchangeably. There are subtle differences, but overall they doesn't make one less true than the other. And theories try to explain observations and make predictions. I guess using "facts" in any context is quite bold because of the misunderstanding people might get.

often belong to 'clans', with their 'dogmas

I don't like seeing these words in scientific context. Because while of course people do fight new ideas, scientists are the ones who are the most open minded. They are the ones having no problems changing their understanding when new facts arise. They don't care about being "right" before, they care about being "right" right now. That means you can propose a revolutionary idea, and if it has any evidence behind, they will accept it. That is why every theory is tested. For example, when some Italians (or whatever) made headlines by creating "cold fusion" reactor, most scientists of course were skeptical, as they know that such a device is probably impossible. Yet, they didn't have problems performing tests on their machine or read their paper on it. Of course scientists ended up being right, as their reactor was most probably not a cold fusion reactor. But it does show how every theory is tested when it makes sense to do so, even if it contradicts our current understanding. They don't hold on to their dogmas. They hold on to what they know. If someone says something they don't know, then they listen. Giving credit and listening to others is very important in science. I have never seen a scientist who has been ridiculed for a theory if the theory is in any way valid/probable.

micro-evolution

But what is a billion micro-evolutions? Couldn't it then be macro-evolution?

You mean new object for every bullet? I usually wouldn't, as I love to have as few objects as possible (often only one or two). But that does defeat the purpose of objects in general, so I guess it is ok and even encouraged to create one object per bullet type. But they should also be as modifiable as possible, so in case you just want to change the sprite and increase damage by 5 you wouldn't have to create new object.

Also, when you do instance_destroy() the instance id isn't freed. GM and ENIGMA just increase max_id whenever an instance is created but it is large enough (2,147,483,647 on a 32bit system) to not be a problem.

through visual evidense.

Science HAS NOTHING to do with "visual" evidence. I already gave you numerous examples and even the freaking definition of science. You cannot come here and tell me what is and what isn't science, because it is NOT up to you. Science is rigidly defined and it's NOT what you think it is. It cannot even, by definition, be debated. Because IT HAS A DEFINITION already. It's like you trying to tell me that regular car wheels are rectangular just because you want them to be. Science (in this case it's more about linguistics) is NOT wishful thinking.

Theory is guesswork that has never been proven because it can never be tested.

I already gave you the definition of scientific theory. It has nothing to do with "guesswork". A scientific theory and fact is the same thing. Just like scientific theory and scientific law is almost same thing (only in law's case it is mathematically written).

What all evolutionists fail to see

What you fail to see and I have been telling you this for 3 freaking forum pages now - YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEE MACRO EVOLUTION IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES TO ACTUALLY CONSIDER IT A FACT! Like you cannot see the rotation of constellations in one human life time either. Science is not about seeing things in one human lifetime.

- yes animals adapt to their surroundings -

But that IS NOT evolution. This kind of adaption means that the animal makes specific steps forward that goal. Like you wearing a sweater is your choice and it's nothing to do with evolution. Something like evolution in this case would mean that a mutation would make you really hairy and that would allow you survive an ice age while others would not. That would still not be evolution because, as I stated, evolution is not about one guy having a mutation. It's about a community - over a VERY long time - having many mutations that go to the next generation.

Are you seriously reading any of this?

Sadly I am. Your understanding of science and evolution is non-existent. And it just hurts me that after all the explanations I gave you, you still misunderstand it.

We aren't playing make believe here - it's not rocket science - please connect some dots.

I am connecting the dots very clearly, while you continue ignore the two suggestions I make for you - Learn what is science (very important in a debate about science) and learn what is evolution (very important in a debate about evolution). And you will again cry that I somehow offended you but, I didn't. I gave you two solid suggestions. I gave you A LOT of links. A LOT of definitions. A LOT of examples. And yet all you talk about is five legged goats and you wearing a sweater. Both of which are irrelevant to evolution.

And I really do find it very ironic that you don't believe evolution just because you cannot see it in one human lifetime (which is the only "reason", ignorant as it may be, you have given in your posts) and yet you believe in god which you cannot see ever.

P.s. And I do try to give answers to all your questions, so I am in no way dodging some kind of question. Then only thing you still find a reason to not believe in evolution (or call it science) is that you cannot see it your lifetime. But that just stems from your misunderstanding about science. And I tried to rectify that many times in this topic.

There is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. -H. J. Muller

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong. -National Academy of Science (U.S.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Please understand, there are two concepts. Evolution and Devolution.

You please understand that there is a difference between the word "evolution" and the "evolution theory" as in biology. In biology there is no such thing as devolution (at least since 19th century - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_%28biology%29). There is only evolution.

My point clearly was, yes I know a five legged animal isn't evolution - that is my point exactly. Mutation is never positive and is almost never hereditary. Are we on the same page?

Why aren't mutations positive? And something as drastic as five legs is not yet evolution because evolution would also mean that this trait is given to its children as well. "Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". Evolution is also not about evolving an individual, but about evolving a population (as in the previous definition). Another good quote:

A subtle point worth noting is that individual organisms do not evolve, not even if a particular organism is the one possessing a beneficial mutation that later spreads throughout the population. Populations evolve; individuals do not.

So while the mutation is the one giving the goat five legs, it will not be beneficial and it will probably not pass it to its children (either because of natural selection (as in it won't have any children) or because the mutation will just not carry over. Not all mutations transfer from parents to children).

ou are so determined to say that evolution is true science. Why?

Because it is. It is not way less "true science" than physics (any kind of physics, even the ones giving you IPhone) or biology in general (where evolution is an extremely important part). I guess I will give you definition of science as well. One definition:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

And this all applies to evolution. I already told you before - science is not about jumping and then saying that there is gravity. Science is about why there is gravity, how to perform tests that would try break our theory of gravity (falsifications) or confirm the theory. In gravities case we now have theory of general relativity. It states that gravity is tied to mass and mass is tied to time. So gravity can impact time. To test this scientists have launched satellites in space and have noticed time drifts because of gravity. They have also just done that with two atomic clocks at different altitudes and noticed time dilatation. And that is science - scientists didn't stop with "We fall, ergo there's gravity".

"guy discovers solid proof of evolution"

You will never see that in media because evolution is already a scientific fact in the scientific world. No one writes academic papers with titles like "proof of evolution", but instead they write "evolution in species X". Even when in computer science they talk about genetic algorithms they don't start with "This is based on an unproven theory about evolution", but instead you hear "This works great, as it uses the same principle as nature". So it doesn't matter that evolution is not a "fact" for you. No one really cares, as science doesn't hold its progress so "that guy" would get it. They "evolve" (pun intended) while some sit still. And of course there could be a totally different process at play, as one of the pillars (again I mentioned this about 15 times now) of science is falsifiability. That means it can be proven wrong (unlike many made up stuff like religion). On the other hand science also works with facts, so proving it wrong is extremely hard (and rarely happens). Especially with theories with so large amount of scientific evidence.

It seems that sometimes religions can evolve too.

That is something touched previously a little. I have also noticed that some religious organizations like in Vatican not longer try to say that their book or ideas are fact. They stand away from science and agree with everything that comes out of it. And I believe they are doing the right thing. That will allow them to at least keep their religion together for a little while longer. On the other hand groups that don't do that will have less and less believers in them as people get more and more educated. Vatican has no problems with aliens, evolution, homosexuals or anything else right now. And as these ideas transcend to their adherents as well, then you could indeed call it a sort of evolution.

edit: Also check this: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/what-evolution-is-and-what-it-isnt/ (a long read, but has many explanations about the things you are misunderstanding).
Also this: http://www.evolutionfaq.com/ (It's a FAQ style guide on evolution. If you have a specific question you are not getting, then try searching for it there. It has the 99% of the questions creationists usually ask (for 50 years straight)).

edit2: Also, as Robert pointed out - Evolution in humans have almost stopped. At least natural selection has stopped and so is evolution is more "chaotic". As anyone now, even with terminal genetic condition, can usually survive while in not so distant past they couldn't. So of course we still evolve, but it is no longer for some kind of fitness.

Harri you got it all wrong, read my last paragraph a second time, and you'll see why I mentioned the Nazi's, god fearing conservatives are just as bad as godless liberals.

Even so, what I meant is that you cannot take a groups actions, add only their religious beliefs and then think it's 100% connected. It's connected only if they specifically say it's connected (like Taliban killing women who wish to go to school, as it is contrary to their beliefs). In other cases it just shows how their beliefs DOESN'T allow them to make a better decision like they often say ("we are more moral because we are christians").

'If you don't follow our path, you will burn in hell'

But that is not about disregarding god. In other religions you burn in hell mostly, because you "offend" god. Like "you will burn in hell because you don't believe our god". In Buddhism it's just "you will burn in hell if you are a bad person" as karma is the only thing saying who does and doesn't go to hell.

A Naraka (Budism hell) differs from the hells of Abrahamic religions in two respects: firstly, beings are not sent to Naraka as the result of a divine judgment and punishment; secondly, the length of a being's stay in a Naraka is not eternal, though it is usually very long.

First you should see that i've put a smiley next to the sentence. This means it should be taken with a 'grain of salt'

That is why I added "(I doubt it's meant like that in your case though)".

I am fed up to encounter people in every day life who think they know everything

I am too. But those people rarely are scientists. The thing "We know nothing" or "We have a lot to discover" is said often by many scientists as humility (as in understanding you might be wrong, changing your thinking whenever you have proven wrong and so on) is also very important in science. But I just wanted to say how not knowing something doesn't justify believing in god or anything else supernatural. You can if you wish, of course, but going on TV saying how science is BS just because they cannot explain X on the other hand is ignorance. And that is what I am referring too. There are many in this world (even among scientists) who are spiritual or believe their own idea of God, but they don't interfere in matters of science and our acquisition of knowledge while others sadly do. And people (like TKG) sometimes misunderstand science or some specific theory and then also goes on "science bashing" spree even when they are actually the wrong ones. And that is what often distinguishes scientists from theologians. Very few scientists ever dabble in religion (as in trying to prove one religion is false or other truthful or anything else) and they just do their research in the field they know the best. On the other hand there are many theologians debate (often without enough knowledge in the specific subject) about scientific theories because these theories contradict their ideas. So while one doesn't usually care about the other (as religion cannot destroy science), the other often does (as science can destroy many foundations of many religions).

edit: And I forgot:

And "Deus" is Latin for God, so unless I missed a hidden meaning I think I know what your username means.

Of course I do know that. My nickname comes from "Deus Ex Machina" (that is why I have Ex there as well). And it has really no connection to god.

NOWHERE NEAR mature right now

What I meant was that it can be used to create whatever you want in it. The room thing (as Robert pointed out) is LGM side. ENIGMA is only the game engine and the parser/compiler part. It is quite hard to make some GM projects (especially large ones) to work in ENIGMA just because of small incompatibilities (even syntax wise), but that doesn't mean ENIGMA is less mature. I have been using ENIGMA exclusively for about 1.5 years now for many different projects and I haven't had been in much problems. I don't make that many (or good) games though, so maybe there is problem in that regard. But I have created everything from AI simulation to 3D point cloud rendering in ENIGMA. I have played with pixel shaders (some problems there because of FFP we still use in GL3 implementation) as well as graphical effects using things like surfaces and it's functional. Right now there are still things that need to be done though. So you can come back 6 months and things will either be working flawlessly or (a bigger possibility) everything will be broken because of some another major system recode.

I also don't think it's a problem. Of course etymology wise it does come from religious side, but that in no way means it somehow a religious thing now. There are many secular and national holidays around the world. For example, commemoration of ending of WW2 is a holiday, but it is not in any way connected to religion. Just like Earth Day or many other. You can of course come up with a better name, but in English it is the most used one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday). And I personally don't know another one which could be used.
In other languages of course there are other way to say it. In Latvian we have "brīvdiena" which means "free day" (as in day off). We also have "svētki" which in essence just means "holiday" and it even has a similar etymology ("svēts" means "holy"), but are not considered to have any religious connotations now. For example "Christmas" is "Ziemassvetki" which just means "Winter Holidays" (ziema + svētki). And it was called like that before Christianity, as originally it was a name for a pagan celebration for winter solstice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziemassvetki).