AMC The Walking Dead - Michonne's Katana

Quote
CliffStamp
but that doesn't dismiss God any more than the fact that I can show you how professional wrestling (don't read this next part Chum) is scripted and not "real" doesn't mean that there are not any actual "real" (not staged) fights.

Why must you ruin everything for me?


Chumgeyser on Youtube
E-nep throwing Brotherhood. Charter Member

In that way- why are we the dominant species? We are smarter. Why are we smarter? We evolved. Why did we evolve faster than everything else? Mental capacity. Where did that mental capacity come from? Chance? And God said let there be light.

But how are we to know that our logic is the correct logic? How we to say we know more than God? Of course we can't understand God created everything ever be or ever was.
They aren't random acts, they are acts of "faith". Which is why it is hard to except God as there is no proof and seems so tantalizingly random.

I often wonder if I was born in Iraq if I would not be Islam, closest explanation I can see is from the tower of Babylon where he destroyed the tower and changed everyone to speak different languages.

I personally think science only helps prove that God exist. As what happens when science can't explain things that happen? We don't understand yet. Just like we don't understand God.

I also think Cliff should have a handicap to level the playing field.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2014 04:40AM by KWB.

Oh crap. Now it has turned in a religious debate.

If I may get back to the former topic, one main question si: how do we know what we know about zombies? There are only two facts we can take for granted: the zombification process brings back motion for at least some days/weeks into bodies we would call dead (making them "living deads", though we can't really get any information from this designation - life is too complicated to define, and zombies question the concept much more than Schrödinger's cat), and destroying their head "kills" them for good/makes "it" unanimate objects. Is a zombie a he/she or a it, by the way?

Obviously, "our" modern zombies are not the original voodoo ones, so I immediatly move this definition and source of knowledge aside. The whole zombie thing started and was made popular through cinema. Many of these movies take place in a contemporary setting: the second half of the 20th century and beginning of the 21st, but some are a bit more futuristic, and take place in a post-apocalyptic near future. But lets's take two iconic movies: 21 days later and Romero's Zombie/Dawn of the dead. In 21 days later, it's openly stated that a virus caused the zombie breakout, and it's not a theory but an actual fact. In Dawn of the dead, the viral cause is only mentionned as a theory, the supernatural origin being mentionned also ("when there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth").

In I am a Legend, Will Smith plays a character conducting experiments on the very special zombies of this movie, and there again it's obviously a virus. In Romero's Day of the dead, the "mad scientist" also conducts experiments on zombies, both anatomical and behavioural. He discovers zombies still have a consciousness, rudimentary memories, and even sort of feelings, and on the other hand there is no clue of the viral origin of the zombification process. In Zombieland, as far as I remember, no cause is mentionned. In cheap italian movies of the 70's mixing zombies and cannibals in faraway islands, magic/stanic rituals are often the cause of the zombification.

So, with all these diverging "sources", and their various version of the zombie: slow "brainless" walkers as in Romero's movies, fast, violent and contagious as in 21 days later, or fast, vicious and intelligent as in I am a legend, etc... And if it's viral, zombies wil have to "eat" or get energy in some ways. I don't see them developping photosynthesis (though that would make a damn original movie: zombie trees), so they might starve to "death". If it's supernatural, on the other hand, they may keep on roaming the earth endlessly. Also one issue: can they swim or walk underwater? In the dud Shockwaves, nazi SS experimental zombies walk from the deep of the sea where their ship sunk to the paradisiac but creepily abandonned island the protagonists coasted.

So there's no easy answer to the question: what can we expect from a zombie?

Quote
KWB
In that way- why are we the dominant species? We are smarter. Why are we smarter? We evolved. Why did we evolve faster than everything else? Mental capacity. Where did that mental capacity come from? Chance? And God said let there be light.

This is probably going to be more than you want to know about wheat.

We were not always the dominant species in any sort of definition, while there is not agreement on exact numbers, what we now know is that there was a mass extinction event about 70k years ago and the entire population of the earth was reduced to as low as 40 breeding pairs of people. Again, the estimates come in differently depending on what data is looked at and how, but it is as low as 40 breeding pairs and only as high as 1000-2500 people total on the entire planet. This happened because of a volcano in ancient sumatra.

At that time we were almost wiped out and minor changes in where we were at the time of the eruption could have made the extinction event total as could many other small events such as migration patterns. In any case the population survived and slowly climbed up. But here is the thing, this kind of event is called a population-bottleneck and it is responsible for major advancements in evolution. It is easier to explain with the math but at a basic level you can understand from this example.

Lets assume you know how to play baseball very well, the way you hold the bat, and the way you can read plays. If you play baseball with a team of 20 people then how long would it take you to teach them and how long would it be before they all knew. Now what about if the only people who played baseball on the planet were your team. It would mean that anytime you would learn something everyone, the entire population would benefit from it almost instantly.

The same thing happens in evolution, if a population is small and very clustered then it can advance very rapidly due to the genetic transfer speed and probability being very high, if the population is large and spread out then the opposite happens. Thus these random almost extinction events (multiple have happened) are responsible for the dramatic genetic advancement in humanity.

Now as to why we are so advanced, it is all dependent on wheat and a very random thing that happened about 10k years ago. Before then wheat, while useful, was not a staple, but at about that time there was a very low chance breeding event where a number of species of wheat cross bread to produce a plant which :

-had a much higher seed density
-the rachis became less brittle
-the seed coverings loosened

This meant :

-more seeds per plant
-you could easily gather whole ears vs individual seeds
-threshing was much easier

The really curious thing is that plant would not have survived without people because it does not naturally disperse (the rachis has to be very brittle for that to happen) *however* it is almost ideal for people to harvest and plant this one event it argued by many to the major shift in humanity from hunter gathers to city dwellers and this is what produced the explosion of math, art, languages, culture, etc.

Now that explains why we are the way we are now - as to does it make us more dominant? Well we don't have the largest number of organisms, or the largest biomass, but we do have maybe the largest capacity to influence the world around us to the extent we can easily for example kill other organisms if we wish. Why did we so strongly select what we call intelligence when rats (which predate us) did not? Yes, modern theories of evolution just describe that as chance in origin, it happened in monkeys that intelligence produced a stronger response than it did in rats.

The basic argument is this - if you were to make one rat much smarter but another rat more physically capable, it isn't as strong as a driver in making one monkey like animal more intelligent vs being more physically capable because the monkey like-being is more able to utilize intelligence because of the other aspects of its design. There is a whole part of modern biology which is mingling with mathematics which takes about what happens when certain systems merge and become almost driven to a point because of how they influence each other.

Thus a few random things create something and all of a sudden because of the nature of what is produced it is almost guaranteed to produce a given outcome which is no longer looking very random, in fact it looks intentional. The way when water turns to ice for example it has to produce a very specific crystal structure because of the nature of the elements which form water combined with the way natural laws work. These things which do not look intentional when combined produce something that looks very much designed or intentional.

This is at the heart of some of the current methods by which understanding is attempted to be reached in how extremely complicated systems can have evolved because the random chance methods of just combining a bunch of different things generates much too low a probability. However when you bring in the self-organizing mathematics then the probability shrink massively and in fact can go to 1, meaning it has to happen.

Quote

But how are we to know that our logic is the correct logic? How we to say we know more than God?

It depends on what you mean by know, we can know our logic is coherent for example, but that doesn't mean it isn't a sub-set and it certainly doesn't mean it is exhaustive. We also know, by the definition of the judeo-christian God that we are in all ways less because it is an omni-perfect being. This is actually at the heart of the rejection of the problem of evil which basically is in a nutshell, evil does not disprove God because it is possible that God has a rational purpose for evil which we are not capable of knowing, similar to the cat-string example you cited.

This is why no one argues the problem of evil to disprove God any more because it is rejected by modal logic. However there is still the probabilistic argument which basically puts you in the position of the child in the problem posed earlier. If you are the child then yes you can not know in the absolute sense if an adult is right/wrong and you also know that they do know/reason at a higher capacity than you. However does this mean you should not reason and that you should just accept any action?

This line of argument rejects the without-justification argument because in general that isn't a reasonable position. However if it is known that God exists, if there is no doubt of this, then the argument collapses and reason would dictate that you would just follow directions without justification being required and in fact it might not even be possible to provide justification due to the disparity in ability to rationalize.

Quote

They aren't random acts, they are acts of "faith". Which is why it is hard to except God as there is no proof and seems so tantalizingly random.

If you believe without justification, then by definition the choice was random in nature as it was done without reason. The word faith, like most words in these discussions needs to be clearly defined. Many of the new atheists will define faith to be belief without reason, i.e., an irrational stance, but that isn't what for example Craig means when he says that he has faith in the Christian God, he has justification, it just isn't empirical. Plantinga will go further and say that it is a properly basic belief, similar to how we believe the past existed - for which also there is no way to prove/disprove it empirically, it is just accepted.

Quote

I often wonder if I was born in Iraq if I would not be Islam, closest explanation I can see is from the tower of Babylon where he destroyed the tower and changed everyone to speak different languages.

Dawkin's says this all the time, the only reason you are X is because you are born in Y. This is one of the things which is double face palm worthy as there are lots of people who are not the religion dominant in the area of which they are born or of the religion of their parents. It is a driver of course, but it isn't the only one. It is no different than if you are born into a family whose father is a cop, and his father was a cop, then it is not unlikely you will be a cop. This doesn't mean you are going to be one without exception, or that it is the only reason if you did choose to be, it is just an influence.

Quote

I personally think science only helps prove that God exist.

There are some fairly interesting things which have been discovered such that every man, woman and child on this earth can trace their genes back to a single woman and a single man, who have been dubbed of course mitochondrial "Eve" and y-chromosome "Adam" . However the best dates on both put Eve before Adam, but still it is fairly interesting from a judeo-christian view.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2014 04:23PM by CliffStamp.

Cliff- you explained how, but not where. So everything happened to us by chance if good fortune? One of the most weakest creatures on earth went on to be the dominant one? Curious. You should watch the science channel and how meat and cooking greatly expanded our mental capacity I would explain it but I don't want to ruin it.

" the best laid plans of nice and men" your last sentence sums it up. We are all children I the eyes of God.

Or maybe we are just not advanced enough to understand, also faith and knowing are two different things. I know god exist. I realize I can't prove this by our standards.

You see I don't always hold the same views as others may, everyone goes by the Bible, but they often forget the Bible was wrote by people with words from God people are not perfect they make mistakes. To top it off it was written in Arabic which doesn't always translate all that well. I think the main point is to accept him and do your best. And that's good enough for me.

The Bible has many metaphors such as Moses parting the Red Sea, but when you watch the history channel they explain it to us in another way. I just can accept everything u question is already addressed in the Bible. And don't get me wrong I haven't picked one up in years. As I don't really need to at this point.

Quote
KWB
So everything happened to us by chance if good fortune? One of the most weakest creatures on earth went on to be the dominant one? Curious.

That is an interesting question, was it all just chance - however you have to realize that a question such as "Why did it happen?" presumes that there was a direction, i.e., this question only makes sense if there is a God, if there isn't a God that question has no meaning. Water does not decide for example to turn into ice when the temperature falls below a certain point, it just does because of the physical nature of water.

Now you can ask the question - "Why does water have the properties that make it that way?" and this leads to the question as to why the laws in our universe are the way they are and not some other way. This is one of the great central conflicts between theists and atheists. A theist will say "They are that way because God made them like that so we could live here."

An atheist will claim there is no why, that is just the way things are because they are that way.

This answer doesn't satisfy a lot of people because no one really accepts that for anything. This has lead to postulates such as the multi-verse hypothesis which is an extension of some ideas in quantum mechanics. It basically says that universes exist for any laws, any thing you can think of exists in some universe, however the only one in which people would find themselves asking that question are the ones in which they laws allowed them to be formed.

However there is a pretty severe criticism of this because there is outside the bounds of science, there is no way that it can be disproven, it just has to be accepted. But there are lots of things which sciences has which are similar, it assumes there is a past for example. But, is it reasonable for a scientist to say that the multi-verse explains physical constants but it isn't reasonable for a theist to say God does?

Quote

You should watch the science channel and how meat and cooking greatly expanded our mental capacity I would explain it but I don't want to ruin it.

There is work being done by researchers such as Suzana Herculano-Houzel for example on how diet influences brain capacity, and calculations which show for example that the brain of a gorilla could not advance into the size/weight that ours has because it would place too much of a demand on the requirement for caloric intake. However this is very recent work and there isn't uniform agreement as to how much of an influence was due to meat vs vegetation (the brain runs on glucose) because simply cooking most plant matter has a drastic increase in how much calories are obtained from it.

It has to be clear though this isn't a case that we evolved larger brains because we started cooking, this is an example of self-organizing where a group of behaviors end up producing something which will refine towards a very specific goal. This happens all the time with behavior, it isn't just physical. For example as people started harvesting grains in large quantities they did not need to move around, this meant they camped in settlements. As they no longer had to move around they had more free time and naturally people would tend to cluster in the more ideal locations, hence cities started to form. As cities started to form then selective pressures would change and drive both behavioral and physical adaptations.

It is no different than when the ice age comes in/ went out it changes the pressures on what/how things evolved. To be clear this doesn't mean that it creates the changes necessary to survive, it just is very likely to kill the things which are not suitable and thus what is successful is passed on. But again there is no directed goal, it is random in nature but self-organizing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2014 02:20PM by CliffStamp.

I don't understand how an atheist can try to make sense of everything to the point of why, and than just say I am not concerned with is a curious act. Consider how many people ask why when they find out they have cancer? The main question or at least the most important one isn't how, "why did this happen to me". To chalk that up to chance seem to me be a really bad situation with no hope to inspire.

Quantam mechanics are theories, they can't be proven. Much in the same God can be proven by our logic. Does that mean its not true? But to say the universe exist for any laws is to say there is a God. This would deify the laws if physics, which is to say science works around us instead of the other way around. That is also like saying there are parallel dimensions in which there may be multiplies of people. This realm can not be associated with true science as it can not be proven. And which case the atheist debate is over as there goal is understanding. Not to say I don't love hearing and watching shows about the more interesting areas of science. I always try to remember everything can and will be explained at some point. By who is the question I am most interested about.

I agree with that first part, but while every other living thing on the planet is the same. And only the stongest survive why are we so incredibly different? And not bigoligical either, but why in this way? Can we really chalk up everything to chance a lucky roll of the dice? If someone jumped off a 2 stories building head first and survived some would say miraculous other would say science than give an explanation. They always have justification except when it comes to why? Consider this if our our universe changed 1/1,000,000 of fraction we wouldn't be able to exist. How can we possibly chalk that up to chance? ( not sure on the fraction but it was something like that) it makes you understand how fragile existence is. Unless everything in the universe can be explained you can't dismiss the theist point if view.

Quote
CliffStamp
We are made in God's image, God is rational and uses it, we are rational but should not use it.

Is God a rational being though? Some would argue that we don't understand God because God's nature is too complex for us to understand.

Gods rationale is to complex for us, but he did make us in his own image. And many people have different theories but don't you think someone that created everything could communicate with us in a way that we understand.

Also what need would there be for faith if we could prove he exist by the standards we have set. Noah and the burning bush.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2014 01:27AM by KWB.

Quote
KWB
I don't understand how an atheist can try to make sense of everything to the point of why, and than just say I am not concerned with is a curious act.

The reason they don't feel the need is usually because they don't think that question means anything as there isn't a why. It is like asking why is water made from hydrogen and oxygen.

Quote

Quantam mechanics are theories, they can't be proven.

A theory is the highest form of certainty in science, in particular quantum mechanics has one of if not the strongest certainty in all of empirical measurement as it has been shown to hold to extreme precision.

Quote

Can we really chalk up everything to chance a lucky roll of the dice?

Not really, again there are constraints, drivers and complex math behind this, it isn't just rolling dice and an eyeball is formed, it happens through many mechanisms; natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift, mutation bias, genetic hitchhiking, etc. .

Quote

Consider this if our our universe changed 1/1,000,000 of fraction we wouldn't be able to exist. How can we possibly chalk that up to chance?

Take a set of cards, shuffle them a few times, now turn them over and record the order. The probability that order you observed happened is ~10^-68 .

That is a number so small that it is unlikely that you can imagine its size. To give you an idea, 10^68 is larger than the number of atoms combined in the earth, and all the planets and stars you can see.

It isn't trivial to use probabilities in that manner because we observe insanely small probabilities all the time yet no one gives them a second glance, no one thinks they are signs of anything.

If you want to make those kinds of inferences you have to use bayesian statistics and if you try to then you quickly realize that you can't prove God in that manner.

The basic argument is something like :

-observe something which can't be explained
-what is the probability that happened naturally
-if this is really small then God exists

You have to understand bayesian math to understand why this fails, but essentially the reason that it does is because the probability you are proposing to counter the small naturally probability is completely unknown and it isn't meaningful to say it is more/less than the natural probability.

I'm not trying to prove God exists, simply asking questions that I find rather curious, everyone has there own opinion and beliefs. I am not going to chanellenge that. But if they are interested in God I will certainly tell them about him.

Cliff theories are not facts. And although quantman mechanics theories are very precise that does not make them facts.

You also must understand that I have no college education or expertise in these subjects. Just trying to keep my head above water in essence. I only know what I read and have learned in life experiences. When you say Bayesian if used in different context I might think its a spice for steak.

Quote
KWB

Cliff theories are not facts. And although quantman mechanics theories are very precise that does not make them facts.

We have to be careful here of the language being used because if you intermix terms then nonsense can result.

A scientific fact is simply an observation, if you measure the length of the edge of the knife then the recorded number is a fact. If you add vanadium to a steel in trace amounts and you observe the grain being refined that is a fact. If you then propose that vanadium can produce grain refinement then that is a hypothesis. If you can verify this through repeated observation and you have a mechanism which explains it (grain boundary pinning) it will become part of the theory which describes martensite formation in alloy steels.

A theory isn't a fact, because a fact is a simple statement and a theory is a broad explanation which is composed of facts and explains them. For example in quantum theory, it is an observed fact that even single electrons will cause interference patterns, this is a fact as it can be directly observed, fire single electrons at a diffraction grating and you can observe an interference pattern beyond it. How this is explained, how we can describe how this happens is through quantum theory. And we know quantum theory is true to the most we know any theory is true (far beyond gravitational theories for example or electrical ones).

Now it is possible that you could look at the evidence for quantum theory and say "I am not convinced" however as there is more evidence for that than almost any other theory (it was at one point the strongest empirical evidenced but this changes as more experiments are done like who can memorize pi to the longest) so if you were not convinced for that for example you would not be convinced in the theory of gravity either.

It should be clearly understood though that science doesn't (or should not anyway) claim to make some kind of absolute statements as in "it is a universal and objective reality that X" the most science should ever say is something like "based on the observations to date, it seems most likely that the reality is X". If you look back through history you will see that the X's look to be slowly converging but to move beyond that and start making absolute claims is to reject science and retreat into some kind of unfounded view as well.

In short, while you can reject scientific claims, you have to be careful as if you reject the ones which are strongest evidenced then it is an odd position to take and it strongly suggests special pleading .

Quote

When you say Bayesian if used in different context I might think its a spice for steak.

Unfortunately Bayesian statistics is rarely taught which is ironic of a sort as it is one of the most powerful statistics. It allows you to answer the general questions of the type : How likely is it that X is true given that we have observed Y? The calculation is based on the difference between the probability of observing X and Y (both are true) vs Y is true and X is false.

The reason that this is critical is that it is used to design experiments and set controls/required precision. If it is not done properly you can end up with tests for example which will not produce the required results. For example if you are drug testing a population and only 1% of the population uses drugs, how accurate does your test need to be so that false positives are less than 5%.

If you do not set your controls accurately you could end up in a situation where when someone tests positive it is actually more likely they don't use drugs than they do.

The last part reminds me if removing variables to get more accurate response in your findings. When figuring out problems I use what I consider basic logic. Sometimes it will envolve physics, now I understand the application and results but I can in no form out those findings to paper ( as I never educated about them). My method usually is not the fastest but eventually I will come to the right conclusion as a remove variables till I don't have any left, than add one at a time and test the results before going to the next. When something goes wrong I know what went wrong.

But the nonsense factor could be very well no sense as it is out of my realm of knowledge.

Quote
dragonetti

Some would argue that we don't understand God because God's nature is too complex for us to understand.

The problem with that however is that if you abandon justification then you can make any claim and it has equal validity. For example I can postulate that God exists but it is an omni-max evil being (Evil God).

If you tried to argue against this by saying something like "Wait, look at all the love and beauty in the world, how can you think that an evil being would do that?"

All I have to say is "What, how dare you question Evil God, you can not begin to contemplate why he does what he does, for you are far beneath him!"

This is why in general most modern apologists will be very leary of saying "God works in mysterious ways ..."

Modern arguments are much more sophisticated and will argue on that basis of rational evidence God can be shown to exist, or it is argued as a properly basic belief, or it is argued to exist because it is not the case that it is impossible that it could exist. The latter argument is a non-trivial exercise in modal logic.

William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga are two of the modern strongest apologists for example, Sye Ten Bruggencate is gaining popularity not because of the strength of argument but how it completely mystifies most people. It will be interesting to see what happens when he debates Matt Dillahunty later this month.

Quote
Madnumforce

Also one issue: can they swim or walk underwater?

Classic zombies have been shown to do that. In general it seems to be they do not need to breath because you can remove their lungs and it has no effect. It might be the case they need oxygen, or something in the air, however if they do they are getting it from other ways and it appears to have minimal effect because for example you can bury them or enclose them in confined spaces and it doesn't stop them.

There are many different zombies of course, the rage zombies are not supernatural in any sense and and are essentially just rabid and quickly die of starvation. However classic zombies don't really seem to and if they do have a required ingestion, they seem to be very efficient at using it. Maybe they have been animated by Tardigrades, the most durable animal in existence.

Tardigrades make even classic zombies look kind of lame as they can :

-withstand temperature close to absolute zero
-ignore boiling water (and temperatures well above it)
-are not bothered by pressures which are many times greater than those found in the deepest ocean
-do not pause at levels of radiation at doses hundreds of times higher than what kills people
-they can live in the vacuum of outer space
-have lasted more than 10 years without food or water
-can be dried out and just go to sleep, will wake up when rehydrated

Take that zombies!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/06/2014 05:02PM by CliffStamp.

A Tard Apocalypse would be messed up...




Chumgeyser on Youtube
E-nep throwing Brotherhood. Charter Member

In the Science channel- through the wormhole with Morgan freeman, there will a discussion on if a zombie apocalypse could actually happen. June 4- 10/9c



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2014 08:24AM by KWB.

I heard there was a tardigrade event at Dr. Goldstein's lab at UNC that required an extreme quarantine. According to leaked reports, a graduate student was secretly attempting to grow "super sized" waterbears the size if a grain of rice, his goal was to sell the project to DARPA to equip them with micro sensors for military use. When discovered, the only way they were able to eradicate was by desiccating to weaken them, and then blasting them with sonically with high frequency sound waves pulled from Justin Bieber albums. Given that the entirety of the forgoing events was derived in my imagination, the veracity of the story is somewhat questionable.

I heard about that as well. Scary stuff .

Quote
chad234
the only way they were able to eradicate was by desiccating to weaken them, and then blasting them with sonically with high frequency sound waves pulled from Justin Bieber albums.

I'm not sure the military, or anyone else, should be able to wield that kind of destructive technology. I shudder to think what could happen if it got into the wrong hands.


Chumgeyser on Youtube
E-nep throwing Brotherhood. Charter Member

I think torture is against the Geneva convention

Story doesn't hold up, being the size of rice they would be vulnurable to mechanical forces. Could just powder them up and make flour with um.

I tried to watch some of that World War Z movie, I had to stop at about 5 minutes in before nearly stroking out. It was just so dumb.

Quote
Old Spice
I tried to watch some of that World War Z movie, I had to stop at about 5 minutes in before nearly stroking out. It was just so dumb.

I watched the entire movie, just because, but you are correct. That was a horrible movie.


Chumgeyser on Youtube
E-nep throwing Brotherhood. Charter Member

Water beeaaarrrsssss. Scary stuff. One of my most regular forums is ZombieSquad and this is one of those discussions that happens over and over. Lots of interesting perspectives coming from you guys though. I personally sit on the blunt weapon side of the fence and have always wanted to make my own flanged mace. The Bar Mace for me is a strange one, because the small number of flanges on it almost forces you to orient the weapon so that you hit perpendicularly, much like a knife. ZombieGoBoom recently tested what was essentially a flat edged chopper with some interesting results.
[www.youtube.com]
As accurate as their heads may be, I think that first hit shows that they could really do with some skin over that thing. Aside from that though It clearly does a great job and makes me wonder if a traditional blunt force weapon is necessarily any better than a blunt blade. The main difference being that the majority of blunt weapons are are optimised for armoured opponents while a blade still retains the balance, maneuverability and precision of it's original intended use.

I think if a zombie apocalypse happened I would just kill myself rather than live in such a cliche world.

I totally agree, if a zombie apocalypse happens I'll just kill you too.

www.theflatearthsociety.org

BIGFOOT FINDS YOU, YOU DON'T FIND BIGFOOT!



IT IS THE E-NEP THROWING BROTHERHOOD

Quote
fugglesby
Aside from that though It clearly does a great job and makes me wonder if a traditional blunt force weapon is necessarily any better than a blunt blade. The main difference being that the majority of blunt weapons are are optimised for armoured opponents while a blade still retains the balance, maneuverability and precision of it's original intended use.

I think it's all about getting the maximum penetration into the the head without binding. You need to be able to one-shot the zombie and then quickly move on to the next target. Ideally you want to be able to do this with a one handed weapon, so you can use your off hand for whatever else is necessary ie. holding a flashlight, pushing away a second zombie, eating a sammich, whatever.

I think a long, heavy, knife with a sabre grind, a large fuller and a high angled edge would be ideal.


Chumgeyser on Youtube
E-nep throwing Brotherhood. Charter Member

Quote
Chum
I think it's all about getting the maximum penetration.

Quote
Chum
I think a long, heavy ........ would be ideal.

Quote Bomb.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not Cliff, its Dr Stamp
#kebabstickcut, it's a thing - make it happen

Quote
KWB
but don't you think someone that created everything could communicate with us in a way that we understand.

I wonder if God ever said we needed to have faith, or if thats something that was created because he couldn't be found.

Drowned the planet and started from scratch.. Yep.. clearly understood language. After that.. he just got sick of talking to us.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not Cliff, its Dr Stamp
#kebabstickcut, it's a thing - make it happen