Thinking Out Loud

[EHW]

Sup Ketna.

Anyway, to answer the Antichrist question, read Wendy Alec's Chronicles of Brothers. He's gonna rise in, if that book is right, 13 years, and apocalypse is in 2028.

[Kenta.....]

After a morning of playing Smash Brothers Meelee and watching some wannabe remake of .Hack// on YouTube, I got to thinking again about that ultimate video game everyone wants to have created.  By this point in time, we've got all the general ideas down pat, now it's just a matter of mixing 'em all together like Reeses Peanut Butter Cups.  Here are the ideas I'm talking about.

Starcraft.

Fire Emblem.

Golden Sun.

Super Smash Brothers.

Runescape.

Final Fantasy.

And finally, .Hack's The World.  I probably missed a couple, but these will do for now.  Notice that Pokemon isn't in here.

When we want to be entertained, that means it's happy time, and thus, we've gotta get away from anything and everything that's a bother to us.  I think any viewers of this blog (God knows why there'd be any) would agree that this message board is our happy place, because it's a getaway from the world in general.  That's sort of what I'm thinking about.  I just hope that this wouldn't become more addicting than nicotine and create problems at home.

I'm picturing this game to be a massive multiplayer online RPG.  Games are always more challenging and fun whenever you're playing with other real people.  Obviously there are also drawbacks, such as the expenses, rude players, and hackers.  In the end, however, I feel like interaction with other people is more meaningful than with computers.  I dunno, maybe Chobits gave me a fear of becoming too close with computers.  Incidentally, Hideki is still in love with a soulless machine.  Take away Chi's outer skin and that becomes creepy as hell.

But anyway, I suppose I'd better work backwards.  Anyone who's watch .Hack// anything knows about The World, and how real people log on and off every day.  To access it, they need to wear virtual reality helmets and be hooked up to the Internet . . . and have a high-powered computer microphone available at all times.  The World's virtual reality concept is my main high point with it, plus the whole "sexy anime characters" thing.  These are designed to satisfy your Freudian sex and violence drives.

Back up to Final Fantasy.  FF's main perk is that you can have a party which works together to defeat monsters tougher than them.  Yeah, enemies will have to be monsters.  Perhaps Satan can be the main enemy, but for the most part, I know people will be expecting real monsters.  Take 'em from every sort of mythology you can find, I say.  Design them to look like they really did, not watered-down cartoon versions.  Unless they're anime.  Oh, and the victory theme should be as catchy as Final Fantasy's is.

Back up to Runescape.  There's not much RS can do that The World hasn't already covered, except perhaps offer a free service to all who join the Ultimate Game (I'll codename it that for now) and give more things to do to members for a price.  It could be a one-time fee or a monthly fee, depending on how **** the player is.  This isn't the only thing, though.  Runescape lets you fight other players, not just monsters.  This should be one of the high points of the Ultimate Game, only you should be able to set an option which allows you to select or disable "fight other players."

Rats.  I was going to continue, but I had something to do, then I came back to the computer and utterly lost my train of thought and the will to continue.  Guess I'll take it easy and come back to this another time.

[Kenta.....]

Okay, coming back in, we back up to Super Smash Brothers.  Perhaps I don't play enough "fighting using combos" or "fast control fingers" games, but I think that any fighting talent should be earned, and screw level.  Obviously, this is where similarities with Runescape end.  With RS, you click on a monster and just sit there boredly watching until it gets hacked to death.  There's no skill involved here.  It's simply no fun.  Smash Brothers, on the other hand, gives you a feeling of fulfillment when you kick your enemy's ass, since a lot of dodging and tactical maneuvers are involved.  I say that level should do nothing but add on a little extra speed to your character of choice, as well as weapon damage.  This being the case, a high-leveled player could take on a low-leveled player, and the low-leveled player could STILL crush him if the latter happened to have the magic fingers necessary for Smash Bros. battling.  The higher guy may be faster and do more damage when his hits land, but if the lower guy can dodge everything he throws and hits back frequently, the more skilled player should still win.  It won't always work out this way, but most often, it will.

Back up to Golden Sun.  What made that game so great?  Personally, I appreciated the class-up system which relied entirely on little magic creatures who pumped up your stats.  As you went around gathering Djinni, you eventually rose from, say, a Squire to a Knight, to a . . . er, what was the third class-? . . . to a Lord.  Not only did your stats improve with Djinni, but you got higher-leveled attacks too (like Isaac's Oddessy).  This was cool enough, but what made it even more strategic was that you could use up your Djinni temporarily for a huge explosive attack, but had to class-down temporarily until they recovered.  If the Ultimate Game had little critters like this taking part, using them against tough opponents wisely could make the difference between the win and the loss.  Ah, and before I forget, Golden Sun emphasized the four elements of alchemy: wind, water, fire, and earth.  Not only did these have strengths and weaknesses against one another, but your elemental attribute permitted you to do things that no other party member could do, making each and every one of them crucial as a teammate.  You couldn't have gone through 5% of the first game without Ivan's Gust ability to rip down plant growths blocking caves.  Boy, I said a lot about this game.  And I'm STILL not done yet . . . up until now, summoning hasn't been mentioned.  I don't know if it should ALSO have to involve Djinni, as it does in Golden Sun.  Er . . . maybe there should only be one special summoner character.  I'd love to have Bahamut appear on the field every now and then, and incinerate my enemies with a single Mega Flare.

Anyway, back up to Fire Emblem.  This game placed less emphasis on class power, and more on class variety.  Each and every one of the MANY characters you got to control was unique because they were a little different than the others.  In the Ultimate Game, I'm thinking you'd still have one overriding character behind all the others, but as he made friends or you created more profiles, you could switch to these guys and they'd be "minor main characters" immune to permanent death.  While I appreciate .Hack's character variety option, I don't like how you can only experience being one.  Be ALL of them, I say!  Experience a little of every world.  Fire Emblem offered that, and I appreciate it.  What's more, I like how FE has a weapon system, permitting the experts to have tougher weapons than the underlings.  For example, you could have the standard Iron Lance, a Silver Lance which did a buttload more damage, a Killer Lance with an upped critical hit ratio, a Brave Lance which allowed more hits at once, a Javelin which could be used for long range, etc.  Then there were the S-class weapons, which really were special since they were GONE once you used them up, and only the best of the best could hold them.  Hellz ya, weapons with special effects kick ass, and better ones should only be available to higher-leveled players.

Finally, back up to Starcraft.  I've only played it once as a little kid, and I don't know if there are more games like it or what.  But Starcraft kinda backs up what I was saying about having a main overriding character who could order all his other minor characters around.  I guess I'll codename him "Overlord."  Aren't you honored, Picard?  For those of you unfamiliar with Starcraft, you're a tyrant in charge of a large-class operation, typically domination of a certain area.  You could build bases, rally classes of troops, and command them to move wherever you wanted them to go.  If I recall correctly, there was a Lord Of The Rings game just like this, where the "minor main characters" were Frodo, Legolas, Gandalf, and any other "heroes" who you had to keep alive.  These guys were a lot stronger than the disposable, renewable troops you could produce, but like I said, they weren't allowed to die.  You could go for a quality strategy or a quantity of troops, whichever the situation called for.  Time and place was everything, though.

So, how could Starcraft possibly fit in with Super Smash Bros?  I'm thinking you could play as one of the "minor main characters" and lead a squadron of lesser disposable units, pounding your way through throngs of them while your underlings take care of any stragglers.  Could you imagine having an overhead view of Ike and a bunch of nameless myrmidons running into a pack of Deadwalkers, only for you to zoom in SSB style and pound the rib bones out of these suckers, while your minions scurried around slashing the closest enemies to them?  How AWESOME would that be?  You've incorporated Fire Emblem, SSB, and Starcraft together into one great hybrid, just imagine if Ike was maxed out on Djiini and had an advantageous element, too!  Then when your team wins, you'd get the Final Fantasy victory theme (perhaps a really quick victory-pose cutscene) and return to the "world map" after picking up money and dropped items.  Perhaps a couple other "minor main characters" could also be with you at that time.  You know, in case you need an effect done that only they can do (Ivan's "Gust"), or simply so that when all your disposable units die in a hard area, it'd just be the three or four of you main guys left.  That makes 'em more special.

Here's the problem with this hybrid of a game: it would be incredibly complicated in the beginning.  Forget the instruction manuel, any newcomers would just have to figure out how to do what, in little bits at a time.  Like in Pokemon, they could never learn everything the game has to offer . . . I'm just worried that they'd feel overwhelmed and quit right away.  You'll have the people who yell "I just want to hit monsters with my sword!  Why are you bothering me about Djinni and disposable units and classes and minor main characters and all that other complex crap?!"  And really, if you were to design a new character for every class Fire Emblem had to offer, you'd be putting out what . . . fifteen characters under your Overlord?  And this doesn't even include how your Overlord recruited these main guys anyway.  What would they look like when you first met them, hooded figures?  Could you ever get rid of them once you got them?  Could you change their name and their looks, in a way that wouldn't confuse your teammates?

And how would you travel around with other players on your team, if everyone was able to carry disposable units with them?  Your nameless nobodies would have to provide a minimum effect, if small armies were to march around the world map.  Otherwise the fighting would be a confusing chaotic mass most of the time.  What if everyone had an army following his characters?  There wouldn't be enough room to show it all.  Maybe they should be visible only to your own eyes.

Perhaps there should be different action focus points for different parts of the game.  It can be SSB in one area, and Starcraft in another.  That might be more effective.  I'm just thinking out loud here.

And what about your ultimate attack?  One of Smash Brother's main attractions is the new Smash Ball, which allows for the Final Smash, a most kick-ass idea.  A limit break type of attack leaves your characters with a unique feel, and a dependable one at that.  I'm not saying that some sort of Smash Ball should float around the battlefield whenever you're going at it.  I just think that when your characters are weak, or perhaps a sufficient amount of time has passed (like in Tales of Symphonia), you should get to have a second wind.

Whew, I think I bit off more than I could chew, there.  This is more than a Reeses Peanut Butter Cups combo, this is "too many chefs spoil the soup."  Unless there's a separation of concepts during at least some parts, the Ultimate Game may quickly become confusing and/or self-defeating.  It's food for thought, and I'm not going to stop pondering on this, even when my subject changes to something else.

Wow, even now I'm wondering if the Ultimate Game should include every copyrighted character in existence, from Solid Snake to Spongebob Squarepants, from Kenshin Himura to Kermit the Frog.  Hmm.  Maybe that's not a good idea.  Maybe I should just stick with combat-related characters who live within a certain time frame.  This'll have to be a medieval-times roleplay or something thereabouts, or otherwise swords will have null effect to guns.  As we learned from FF8, guns and swords don't mix.

Okay, I'm done.

[Cydonian]

I've been reading your thoughts about the ultimate game, and it's very interesting. If you don't mind I could add in another concept from some RTSes and MMROPGs. This is being able to form alliances and trade routes with other players. The ability to gain allies can have a big impact. This way you can have sort of a king or queen (A high level player) ruling with and helping their followers (Lower level players). The lower level player can open trade with the high level player and give them resources or their loyalty in exchange for protection. Then when the lower level player gets strong enough the can help their leader in wars.

Going further if the lower level players don't like what their ruler is doing the can join together to form a rebellion. Which can give another alliance a chance to join the new war to increase their influence. Also rulers could form treaties with one another for trade or problems that have been affecting their relationship or even create a super alliance. Of course these treaties can be broken which leads to another conflict.

But think about being a war with your army defending it's fortress with the enemy attacking hard when one of your allies shows up to help fight off the enemy (Think of what happened during Helms Deep in LotR.). Then one of the enemy's allies shows up to attack you as well. This can cause fights to last for a very long time.

Of course this is just a concept. I hope you don't mind me posting my thoughts.

[Psycho French Horn Almighty God of Soccer Tennis Bugler]

Wow... You have got to be the most whimsical person I've ever met, but it's all for good reason. I wouldn't mind seeing this 'ultimate game' you speak of when it's all done or thought out.

[Venom]

Your Ultimate Game does sound very intriguing Kenta, but also like you said it could also be quite complicated. I also like Cydonian's idea of the whole alliance and trading.

[Kenta.....]

I came across a pile of children's science books yesterday, which were stacked together in preparation for a yard sale.  They were hardback one-reads which summarized anything basic about science in thirty or forty pages filled with pictures.  Curious about what kids were being taught these days, I looked into the one titled "Our Amazing Earth" (I should've glanced at the copyright date also), only to find a few paragraphs in that the scientists still believe Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  It might not have pissed me off so much, except for the factual way the writers presented it, as if they KNEW the age of Earth.  Oh, this book taught me something all right: QUESTION EVERYTHING.  I guess I should be thankful, because it gave me the motivation I needed to get that "evolution" talk I've been meaning to do posted up.  Yeah, this has little to do with Earth's age, but I'll be back for that another day.

Anyway, I've done a little digging through my college notebooks.  Time to pull together those evidences suggesting that evolution is a load of crap.  I'm about to do a direct-quote, so to keep the context, the argument was over whether or not Creationism and Evolution Theory should both be taught together in schools or not.  I was on the negative team; my proposal was to get rid of evolution completely and hold fast to all Creation has going for it.

Not all of these evidences are actually anti-evolution, though primarily that is their function.  Keep in mind, this is more for my eyes, to look back upon months and years from now.

***

1.  Evolution and Creationism cannot both be correct, because one discredits the other.  Therefore, no matter what, teaching them together is the same as teaching children at least half a lie.  Judge John Jones backs this statement up.
Jones, 2005
[linder, “The Evolution Controversy,” Law.Umkc.Edu.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/evolution.htm Accessed on April 10, 2008]
U. S. District Judge John E. Jones : "ID is based on the same "contrived dualism" as creation science, namely its suggestion that every piece of evidence tending to discredit evolution confirms intelligent design."

2. The materialistic Big Bang theory of Evolution’s origins claims that something came out of nothing to create the known universe.  This contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states matter cannot be created or destroyed.  Because Creationism teaches of forces beyond materialism, therefore Creation theory is at least plausible, whereas Evolution is not.
AllAboutScience Web Staff, April 2008
 [“Big Bang Theory- An Overview,” Allaboutscience.Org.
http://allaboutscience.org/big-bang-theory.htm/ Accessed on April 10, 2008]
The Big Bang Theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning.  Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The Big Bang Theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

3. The most commonly-held Evolutionist belief about the origin of life is the theory that the first living creatures were composed together in the water, aka, the “Primordial Soup.”  This theory fails because of the hydrolysis effect, which would decompose any proteins being formed by amino acids before they could be completed.
Wikipedia Report, April 2008
 [“Hydrolysis,” Wikipedia.Org.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrolysis/ Accessed on April 10, 2008]
Hydrolysis is a chemical reaction or process in which a chemical compound is broken down by reaction with water. This is the type of reaction that is used to break down polymers. Water is added in this reaction.
[“Polymer,” Wikipedia.Org.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer/ Accessed on April 10, 2008]
Well known examples of polymers include plastics, DNA and proteins.

4. Evolution’s “Primordial Soup” model asserts that amino acids form together to make a protein, and ultimately, a living cell.  However, the mathematical chances of the right amino acids coming together to form the smallest possible protein are infinitesimal to the point of impossibility.  This isn't even including the absurd unlikelihood of getting together enough proteins to make a living cell.  To ignore this is to ignore all known science.
Sharp, 2008
 [“The Revolution Against Evolution,” Rae.Org.
http://www.rae.org/revev6.html/ Accessed on April 10, 2008]
Scientists estimate that 238 proteins would be the absolute minimum number that would be needed to form life. Is it possible to bring together that many proteins and interrelate them in such a way to continuously process food and energy? A problem in doing this is even if we concentrated the right proteins together in the same place at once, they still would have to be configured in the proper structure in order for life to exist.
Coppedge, in his book, Evolution: Possible or Impossible, makes several probability calculations concerning life coming about by chance. Giving evolution all kinds of concessions, he comes up with the probability for the first cell to evolve by accident as one chance in 10^29345. It would take an 80-page book just to print that number. In comparison, the number of inches across the known universe is 10^28. Statistically, scientists consider 1 chance in 10^50 to be impossible. From these figures, you can be certain that the evolution of the cell is impossible!

5. The Smithsonian Institution Humans Origin Program asserts that homo sapiens, the latest results of man’s evolution from apes, first appeared around 200,000 years ago.  However, until about 10,000 years ago there was no recorded written history of human progress.  Logically speaking, the homo sapien brain should have been capable of doing so, much sooner.  In simple layman’s terms, if we’ve been around for 200,000 years, why were we utterly illiterate for the first 95% of our time?
Rogers, April 2008
 [Rogers, “Homo Sapiens,” Anthropology.Si.Edu.
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/sap.htm/ Accessed on April 10, 2008]
From these studies an approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations can be calculated. This research has typically yielded dates around 200,000 years ago.

6. By teaching Evolution in school, we are educating children with blatant lies.  All transitional fossils ever discovered to prove the intermediate half-ape, half-man, were fakes.  Below is just one example of fraud.  (*Note to self: the others are on the following site)
Northwest Creation Network Staff, 2008
 [“Evolution Fraud,” Nwcreation.Net.
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html/ Accessed on April 10, 2008]
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

7. If Evolution were true, the earth would have long since been overpopulated by people because of the population growth rate.
Morris, 2008
 [Morris, “Evolution and the Population Problem,” Irc.Org.
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/67/251/ Accessed on April 10, 2008]
The actual data of population statistics, interpreted and applied in the most conservative and most probable manner, point to an origin of the human population only several thousands of years ago. The present population could very easily have been attained in only about 6000 years or so, even if the average population growth rate throughout most of history were only one-sixth as much as it is at present. The burden of proof is altogether on evolutionists if they wish to promote some other population model.

8. The claim that evolution can happen through mutations does not hold up.  Thomas Hunt Morgan’s 1906 Fruit Fly Experiment proved that while mutations do alter fruit fly DNA, they never remain long enough to create a new species of flies, because the mutants all die out from lack of fitness.  Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr reported this.
Pathlights, 2008
[Pathlights Staff, “Fruit Flies Speak Up,” Pathlights.com
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm.  Accessed on April 27, 2008]
"In the first experiment, the fly was selected for a decrease in bristles and, in the second experiment, for an increase in bristles. Starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles, it is possible after thirty generations to lower the average to 25 bristles, "but then the line became sterile and died out." In the second experiment, the average number of bristles were increased from 36 to 56; then sterility set in. Mayr concluded with the following observation: Obviously any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete the store of genetic variability . . The most frequent correlated response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This plagues virtually every breeding experiment."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 134.

9. For life to form, the proteins necessary for making the first living cell had to consist of nothing but left-handed amino acids.  The odds of an average-sized protein (consisting of 500 amino acids) being created purely by chance are 1 in 10^150.  To fathom the meaning of this number, take every atom in the universe, allow them to make one trillion atomic interactions per second for 30 billion years, and know that you still wouldn’t get a protein.  Incidentally, this number is far beyond 1 in 10^50, where chances are 0.
Yahya 2008
[Yahya, “The Molecular Impasse of Evolution: Left Handed Proteins,” Evolution Deceit by    Harun Yahya.  http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter11_1.php]
2. The probability of the amino acids being left-handed:
-The probability of only one amino acid being left-handed     = 1/2
-The probability of all of those 500 amino acids being left-handed at the same time     =1/2^500 =  1/10^150
   = 1 chance in 10^150

10. Charles Darwin’s theory states that animals change over time by changing slightly over many years until they become a completely different but still related creature. Many contrasting animal skeletons at the beginning and end of the “timeline” have been found, but the transitional fossils in between those animals are still missing.  Shouldn’t we have a steady supply of transition fossils all the way through?
Fancher, 2004
[Fancher, “The Fossil Record: Help or Hindrance?” College of DuPage
http://www.cod.edu/PEOPLE/FACULTY/FANCHER/Fossil.htm]
Gradualism leads to the prediction that many of the fossils found should represent these transitional forms. In Darwin's view, species are in a constant state of flux, so these intermediate types should be very common. The problem was that at the time of the publication of Origin of Species, not a single transitional fossil had been identified. Darwin's explanation for this was that the transitional fossils were out there, but the known fossil record was so incomplete that they just hadn't been found yet.


***

While ten evidences aren't needed to completely debunk the pseudoscience of Evolution (actually, only one will suffice), I figured I may as well not waste 'em.  After all, that research took hours to pull together.  And just to put the icing on the cake, I may as well add in some reluctant testimony from various evolutionists with closets full of college degrees.

Paul Davies, physicist and evolutionist, The Edge of Infinity
"[The Big Bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing.  It represents a true miracle . . ."

Joseph Silk (Ph.D. Astronomy and Professor of Astronomy at the University of Oxford), The Big Bang, 2001, p. xv.
"It is only fair to say that we still have a theory without a beginning."

(Anti "chance of primordial soup protein formation")

Bernard Lovell (Ph.D. Astronomy), In the Centre of Immensities - "effectively zero" (in regard to a protein, let alone a cell, forming by pure chance)

Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature - "can never have been synthesized at all, at any time" (Note to self: this guy's one of the co-discoverers of DNA)

Robert Gange, Ph.D. (research in the field of cryophysics and information systems), Origins and Destiny - "Zero"

(All these "zeroes" being talked about are in accordance to the mathematical principle: if the odds are less than 1 in 10^50, the event is effectively zero, and will never happen.)

Johnjoe McFadden (Evolutionist & Professor of Molecular Biology and Quantum Physics), Quantum Evolution, 2000, p. 85.
"The simplest living cell could not have arisen by chance."
(Note to self: first comes the cell, THEN the ribosome)

Franklin M. Harold, Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at Colo State U., The Way of the Cell, 2001, p. 235.
"The origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight . . ."

(Reluctant testimony in concern to intermediate fossils)

Ariel Roth (Ph.D. Zoology), Origins, 1998, p. 184.
"The Cambrian explosion is not just a case of all the major animal phyla appearing at about the same place in the geologic column.  It is also a situation of no ancestors to suggest how they might have evolved."

Ernst Mayr (Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvord University, hailed as the Darwin of the 20th century), What Evolution Is, 2001, p. 14.
"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to descendents.  But this is not what the paleontologist finds.  Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series."

***

Wow, this room is getting really hot.  I want to crank up the A/C, but Mom and Dad won't let me.  Hmm . . . maybe I've just been sitting here too long.  I'd better end now.

[Baron von Redberry]

If evolution were true, wouldn't we have monkeys turning into people every day?

[Dmitri Maksim]

No....


Awesome points Matt.

[Baron von Redberry]

Evolution pretty much means animals turn into other animals over a long period of time. (Don't know what I'm talking about really.) So wouldn't chimpanzees eventually just turn into people?

[Dmitri Maksim]

Evolution pretty much means animals turn into other animals over a long period of time. (Don't know what I'm talking about really.) So wouldn't chimpanzees eventually just turn into people?

What the hell are you getting at? The changes take place over LONG periods of time. Species are still evolving to deal with plantary and climate changes. This isnt the ending of animal farm damnit.

[Kenji]

If evolution were true, wouldn't we have monkeys turning into people every day?

According to the theory, evolution is not fast whatsoever, nor does it happen amongst the individual. Therefore, that would be illogical even if the theory were true.

Also, Kenta, my advice = Just don't get involved in the arguments. Say that you believe in Creation, but leave it at that. That's what I'd do, if I believed either side, which I don't.

Why?

Frankly, I don't care how the universe came to be. It's here, we're here, and that's all that matters.

[Dmitri Maksim]

Tyren that is probably one of the most amazing statements i've ever heard.

[Baron von Redberry]

Yes, but they'd be happening everywhere over a long period of time. Just like how people are born. Sure, it takes nine months, but it still happens every day. .-.

[Kenji]

Tyren that is probably one of the most amazing statements i've ever heard.

Which one?